Ataman, Ali KaanAltintas, Emel2024-05-252024-05-25202122210-84402210-846710.1016/j.tacc.2021.05.0092-s2.0-85107564263https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2021.05.009https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/996Altintas, Emel/0000-0003-4487-5661; Ataman, Ali Kaan/0000-0002-1248-6226Introduction: 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.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessAirAngelGlidescopeVideo laryngoscopesIntubationComparisonArticleQ3403540WOS:000704886200008