Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2011 January;77(1) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2011 January;77(1):11-6



A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596


Minerva Anestesiologica 2011 January;77(1):11-6


Macintosh and Glidescope® performance by Advanced Cardiac Life Support providers: a manikin study

Stroumpoulis K. 1, Xanthos T. 2, Bassiakou E. 2, Iacovidou N. 3, Koudouna E. 2, Michaloliakou C. 1, Papadimitriou L. 2

1 Metaxa Hospital of Piraeus, Athens, Greece;
2 Department of Anatomy, University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
3 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

BACKGROUND. The aim of the present study was to assess whether the use of the Glidescope® would improve the success rates and the duration of intubation attempts during airway management when compared to direct laryngoscopy in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) providers with no prior experience in videolaryngoscopy.
METHODS. This cross-over randomized study involved 44 ACLS providers. The educational session for the participants included a brief presentation of the equipment and a demonstration of the Glidescope®. All intubations were performed using a 7.5-mm endotracheal tube on an adult manikin. A size 3 Macintosh blade and a standard Glidescope® adult blade were used. Glidescope® videolaryngoscope was used. The primary endpoints were: duration of each endotracheal intubation attempt and success rate for each device. A secondary endpoint was the perception of ease of use with each device. Each participant was asked to assess the ease of use of each device using a visual analogue scale (0=extremely difficult and 10=extremely easy).
RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was observed in the time required to successful intubation of the trachea with the Macintosh laryngoscope and the Glidescope®. However, significantly fewer intubation attempts were required with the Glidescope® compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope. In addition, most candidates found that using the videolaryngoscope was easy.
CONCLUSION. This study demonstrated that the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope performed at least as well as conventional laryngoscopy in ACLS providers. Although simpler ventilation techniques should be applied first during critical airway management, this study suggests that, when intubation is needed, videolaryngoscopy can be helpful.

language: English


top of page