No abstract

BackgroundVideolaryngoscopy has been proven to be a safe procedure managing difficult airways in the hands of airway specialists. Information about the success rates in unexperienced users of videolaryngoscopy compared to conventional laryngoscopy is sparse. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if there might be more success in securing an airway if the unexperienced provider is using a videolaryngoscope in simulated airways in a randomized manikin study. Differences between commonly used videolaryngoscopes were elucidated.MethodsA standardized hands-on workshop prior to the study was performed. For direct laryngoscopy (DL) we used a Macintosh laryngoscope, whereas for videolaryngoscopy (VL) we used the cMac, the dBlade, and a King Vision videolaryngoscope. Endotracheal intubations in three simulated normal and difficult airways were performed. Main outcome parameters were time to view and time to intubation. Cormack and Lehane (C + L) classification and the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score were evaluated. After every intubation, the participants were asked to review the airway and the device used.Results22 participants (14.8 ± 4.0 intubations per year, mostly trauma surgeons) with limited experience in videolaryngoscopy (mean total number of videolaryngoscopy .4 ± .2) were enrolled. We found improved C + L grades with VL in contrast to DL. We saw similar data with respect to the POGO score, where the participants achieved better visibility of the glottis with VL. The hyperangulated blade geometries of videolaryngoscopes provided a better visibility in difficult airways than the standard geometry of the Macintosh-type blade. The subjective performance of the VL devices was better in more difficult airway scenarios.ConclusionsAfter a short introduction and hands-on training, a videolaryngoscope seems to be safe and usable by unexperienced providers. We assume a standard geometry laryngoscope is optimal for a patient with normal anatomy, whereas VL device with a hyperangulated blade is ideal for difficult airway situations with limited mouth opening or restricted neck movement.

A score based on preoperative creatinine, leukocyte, and platelet values allowed early estimation of postoperative 30- and 90-day outcomes and intraoperative transfusion requirements in liver transplantation. Results might help to improve timely logistic and personal strategies.

Theory: Individuals have different qualities, levels of willingness, and degrees of engagement for working in teams. This behaviour is termed ‘Collective Orientation’ (CO). Collective orientation can be trained and has a positive influence on team processes. Here, we investigated the effect of a simulator-based, Crisis Resource Management team training upon the participants’ CO. Hypotheses: We hypothesized (1) the scales of CO and Presence for lab-based microworld research (PLBMR) are applicable to the German anaesthesia teams, (2) the CO can be influenced by means of simulation training, (3) the training effect is dependent on sex and/or profession, and (4) the change of CO depends on the perceived presence of the participants in the scenario. Method: In a pre-post study, 66 nurses and doctors from various anaesthetic departments took part in a 1-day training course to improve non-technical skills. The primary outcome was the mean difference between the CO measured (via questionnaires) immediately before (T1) and after (T2) training. The change was then tested for dependence upon other variables, such as sex, professional group, and immersion into the simulation scenarios. Results: Collective orientation improved significantly after training (mean difference: 0.2; P < .001; dz = 0.53). Considering the subscales, affiliation increased significantly ( P < .001; dz = 0.59), whereas dominance remained unchanged. Furthermore, no correlation was found regarding sex, professional group, or immersion into the simulation scenarios. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that simulation-based training improves the participants’ COs, primarily by increasing affiliation. Subjective scenario reality did not significantly influence this. Nonetheless, it remains unclear as to what factors categorically resulted in this benefit. The shared experience in the course by all team members might trigger the effects. However, further studies are needed to identify the modifiable factors that can improve teamwork attitudes.

No abstract