Comparison of a commercial 3D fabricated laryngoscope (Airangel®) with a widely-used video laryngoscope (Glidescope®): Randomized controlled cross-over study

dc.authorid Altintas, Emel/0000-0003-4487-5661
dc.authorid Ataman, Ali Kaan/0000-0002-1248-6226
dc.authorscopusid 57224449392
dc.authorscopusid 57192676165
dc.authorwosid Altintas, Emel/A-9527-2019
dc.contributor.author Ataman, Ali Kaan
dc.contributor.author Altintas, Emel
dc.date.accessioned 2024-05-25T11:26:36Z
dc.date.available 2024-05-25T11:26:36Z
dc.date.issued 2021
dc.department Okan University en_US
dc.department-temp [Ataman, Ali Kaan] Okan Univ, Fac Med, Dept Emergency Med, TR-34959 Istanbul, Turkey; [Altintas, Emel] Ankara Numune Training & Res Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, TR-06230 Ankara, Turkey en_US
dc.description Altintas, Emel/0000-0003-4487-5661; Ataman, Ali Kaan/0000-0002-1248-6226 en_US
dc.description.abstract Introduction: Video laryngoscopes improve visibility of the vocal cords, especially in difficult airways, and enable successful intubation at the first attempt. In this study, we aimed to compare the success rate of AirAngel intubation produced by 3D printing and Glidescope video laryngoscopes used routinely in the first attempt. Methods: Intubation was performed by emergency physicians with AirAngel and Glidescope video laryngoscopes in a randomized, crossover model in normal and difficult airway simulations. Twenty-three emergency medicine physicians were included in the study. The number of intubation attempts, intubation success and intubation time were recorded. Results: In normal airway simulations, the first-pass success of intubation was 47% for AirAngel video laryngoscopy and 100% for Glidescope video laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). In difficult airway simulations, the first-pass success of intubation was 39% for AirAngel video laryngoscopy and 87% for Glidescope video laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). While all intubations with AirAngel and Glidescope were successful in normal airway simulations, the success rate of AirAngel video laryngoscopy in difficult airway simulations was only 56.5%, while it was 100% for the Glidescope. Conclusion: The intubation success rate of AirAngel video laryngoscopes was significantly lower than that of Glidescope video laryngoscopes. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 2
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.tacc.2021.05.009
dc.identifier.endpage 40 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2210-8440
dc.identifier.issn 2210-8467
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85107564263
dc.identifier.scopusquality Q3
dc.identifier.startpage 35 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2021.05.009
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/996
dc.identifier.volume 40 en_US
dc.identifier.wos WOS:000704886200008
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Elsevier Sci Ltd en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess en_US
dc.scopus.citedbyCount 8
dc.subject AirAngel en_US
dc.subject Glidescope en_US
dc.subject Video laryngoscopes en_US
dc.subject Intubation en_US
dc.subject Comparison en_US
dc.title Comparison of a commercial 3D fabricated laryngoscope (Airangel®) with a widely-used video laryngoscope (Glidescope®): Randomized controlled cross-over study en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.wos.citedbyCount 7

Files