Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Mean time used to insert supraglottic devices and endotracheal tube in simulated optimal and restricted access

From: Airway management in simulated restricted access to a patient - can manikin-based studies provide relevant data?

Device Manikin Scenario Number Successful Mean time (seconds) SD
iGel ™ Ambu ™ A (optimal) 20 All 9.9 4.5
iGel ™ Ambu ™ B (restricted) 20 All 12.3 3.6
LTSII ™ Ambu ™ A (optimal) 20 All 12.8 2.9
LTSII ™ Ambu ™ B (restricted) 20 All 10.6 3.2
Macintosh #3 TrueCorp ™ A (optimal) 20 Yes 12.1 3.3
    0 No   
Macintosh #3 TrueCorp ™ B (restricted) 16 Yes 28.0 13.0
    4 No   
P-values for comparing same device in scenario A versus B   
Mean time with iGel in scenario A vs scenario B   p = 0.09 NS  
Mean time with LTSII in scenario A vs scenario B   p = 0.01 S  
Mean time with Macintosh laryngoscope (blade #3) in scenario A vs Scenario B p < 0.01 S  
P-value for comparing devices with each other in scenario A   
Mean time with iGel vs LTSII    p = 0.69 NS  
Mean time with Macintosh #3 vs iGel   p = 0.88 NS  
Mean time with Macintosh #3 vs LTSII   p = 0.19 NS  
P-values for comparing differen devices with each other in scenario B   
Mean time with iGel vs LTSII    p = 0.50 NS  
Mean time with Macintosh #3 vs iGel   p < 0.001 S  
Mean time with Macintosh #3 vs LTSII   p < 0.001 S  
NS = Non-significant, S = significant     
  1. Legend (table 1): The success rates and mean time (seconds) used to insert the supraglottic device and endotracheal tube in simulated optimal (scenario A) and restricted (scenario B) access conditions. Relevant P-values are listed. Specific comment for Macintosh #3 in scenario B: three HEMS physician chose to use digital technique when inserting the endotracheal tube. In 13 cases classic laryngoscopy technique succeeded. In the remaining four cases of attempted direct laryngoscopy no endotracheal tube was placed within the time limit of 60 seconds.