Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of “Scenario A”

From: Comparison of VividTrac®, Airtraq®, King Vision®, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for difficult and normal airways in mannequins by novices

Scenario A

DL (n = 50)

ID (n = 50)

KV (n = 50)

AT (n = 50)

VT (n = 50)

Number of attempts (n, 1/2/3)

49/1/0

50/0/0

50/0/0

48/2/0

50/0/0

Laryngoscopy time (s)

9.46 [6.95–12.87]†¶

11.7 [9.11–15.1]†§¶

6.91 [5.59–10.1]*#

8.01 [6.21–10.2]

5.87 [4.77–7.97]*#§

Tube insertion time (s)

4.98 [4.01–7.02]§

6.70 [5.49–9.47]†§¶

4.61 [2.81–6.27]

3.04 [2.36–4.16]*#†

3.90 [2.20–7.07]#

Intubation time (s)

15.3 [11.92–20.5]§¶

19.7 [15.2–25.8]†§¶

12.7 [9.35–17.8]#

11.2 [8.7–14.04]*#

10.5 [7.55–14.3]*#

POGO (%)

80 [60, 80]†§¶

77.5 [60–90]†§¶

90 [83.75–95]*#

90 [80–95]*#

95 [90–100]*#

Ease of technical use (1–5)

3 [2–4]†§¶

3 [2–4]†§¶

1 [1–2]*#

2 [1–3]*#†¶

1 [1–2]*#§

Ease of physical use (1–5)

4 [3–4]†§¶

3 [3–4]†§¶

1 [1–2]*#

2 [1–2]*#¶

1 [1–2]*#§

Willingness of reuse (1–5)

4 [3–5]

3 [2–4]†¶

5 [4–5]*#§

4 [3–5]†¶

5 [3–5]

Use of bougie (n)

0#

4*†§¶

0#

0#

0#

Use of stylet (n)

1

3

0

0

0

Dental injury (n)

26#†§¶

16*†§¶

7*#

5*#¶

10*#§

Esophageal intubation (n)

0

0

0

0

0

  1. Data are reported as the median [IQR] or as numbers (n)
  2. AT Airtraq®, DL Direct laryngoscope (Macintosh), ID Custom-made, improvised laryngoscope, KV King Vision®, POGO Percent of Glottic Opening, VT VividTrac®
  3. *Significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to DL; #Significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to ID; Significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to KV; §Significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to AT; Significant difference (P < 0.05) compared to VT