Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of “Scenario B”

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

Scenario B

DL (n = 50)

ID (n = 50)

KV (n = 50)

AT (n = 50)

VT (n = 50)

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

48/1/1

47/2/1

46/4/0

47/3/0

50/0/0

Laryngoscopy time (s)

12.16 [9.05–14.4]

16.2 [11.7–23.4]*†§¶

10.86 [7.66–13.0]#

9.13 [7.37–11.7]#

8.99 [7.22–11.3]*#

Tube insertion time (s)

6.52 [4.33–12.97]†§¶

7.04 [5.45–15.04]†§¶

3.31 [2.05–11.68]*#

2.60 [1.90–4.87]*#

3.17 [2.13–4.87]*#

Intubation time (s)

19.0 [14.97–26.1]§¶

23.4 [19.0–35.5]†§¶

15.72 [11.5–23.1]#

12.8 [9.62–16.5]*#

12.7 [10.0–15.8]*#

POGO (%)

40 [20–60]†§¶

45 [25–55]†§¶

75 [60–85]*#

75 [60–85]*#

62.5 [50–90]*#

Ease of technical use (1–5)

4 [3–4]†§¶

4 [3–4]†§¶

2 [1–3]*#

2 [2–3]*#

2 [1–2]*#

Ease of physical use (1–5)

4 [3–5]†§¶

4 [3–5]†§¶

2 [1–3]*#

2 [2–3]*#

2 [1–2]*#

Willingness of reuse (1–5)

3 [2–4]†¶

3 [2–3]†¶

5 [4–5]*#§

3 [3–4]†¶

5 [4–5]*#§

Use of bougie (n)

10†§¶

9†§¶

0*#

0*#

0*#

Use of stylet (n)

5#†§¶

11*†§¶

0*#

0*#

0*#

Dental injury (n)

32

41*†¶

35

39*†¶

35

Esophageal intubation (n)

1

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