BackgroundA variety of instruments are used to perform airway management by tracheal intubation. In this study, we compared the MacIntosh balde (MB) laryngoscope with the Bonfils intubation fibrescope as intubation techniques. The aim of this study was to identify the technique (MB or Bonfils) that would allow students in their last year of medical school to perform tracheal intubation faster and with a higher success probability. Data were collected from 150 participants using an airway simulator [‘Laerdal Airway Management Trainer’ (Laerdal Medical AS, Stavanger, Norway)]. The participants were randomly assigned to a sequence of techniques to use. Four consecutive intubation ‘trials’ were performed with each technique. These trials were evaluated for differences in the following categories: the ‘time to successful ventilation‘, ‘success probability’ within 90 s,’time to visualisation’ of the vocal cords (glottis), and ‘quality of visualisation’ according to the Cormack and Lehane score (C&L, grade 1–4). The primary endpoint was the ‘time to successful ventilation‘in the fourth and final trial.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the ‘time to successful ventilation’ between the two techniques in trial 4 (‘time to successful ventilation’: median: MB: 16 s, Bonfils: 14 s, p = 0.244). However, the ‘success probability’ within 90 s was higher when using a Macintosh blade than when using a Bonfils (95 vs. 87 %). The glottis could be better visualised when using a Bonfils (C&L score of 1 (best view): MB: 41 %, Bonfils: 93 %), but visualisation was achieved more rapidly when using a Macintosh blade (median: ‘time to visualisation’: MB: 6 s, Bonfils: 8 s, p = 0.003).ConclusionsThe time to ventilation using the MacIntosh blade and Bonfils mainly did to differ, however success probabilities and time to visualisation primary favoured the MacIntosh blade as intubation technique, although the Bonfils seem to have a steeper learning curve. The Bonfils is still a promising intubation technique and might be easier to learn as the MB, at least in a manikin.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1937-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

The non-standardized oral specialist examination is the final step of the specialist medical training in Germany. The debate on its current format has long been at the centre of discussions on further training policies. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to relevant structural deficits of the German specialist examination – also in comparison to German-speaking neighboring countries and pan-European developments – and to provide possible approaches to a more structured oral examination.