OBJECTIVE:Videolaryngoscopy has mainly been developed to facilitate difficult airway intubation. However, there is a lack of studies demonstrating this method's efficacy in pediatric patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the TruView infant EVO2 and the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with conventional direct Macintosh laryngoscopy in children with a bodyweight ≤10 kg in terms of intubation conditions and the time to intubation.METHODS:In total, 65 children with a bodyweight ≤10 kg (0-22 months) who had undergone elective surgery requiring endotracheal intubation were retrospectively analyzed. Our database was screened for intubations with the TruView infant EVO2, the C-MAC videolaryngoscope, and conventional direct Macintosh laryngoscopy. The intubation conditions, the time to intubation, and the oxygen saturation before and after intubation were monitored, and demographic data were recorded. Only children with a bodyweight ≤10 kg were included in the analysis.RESULTS:A total of 23 children were intubated using the C-MAC videolaryngoscope, and 22 children were intubated using the TruView EVO2. Additionally, 20 children were intubated using a standard Macintosh blade. The time required for tracheal intubation was significantly longer using the TruView EVO2 (52 sec vs. 28 sec for C-MAC vs. 26 sec for direct LG). However, no significant difference in oxygen saturation was found after intubation.CONCLUSION:All devices allowed excellent visualization of the vocal cords, but the time to intubation was prolonged when the TruView EVO2 was used. The absence of a decline in oxygen saturation may be due to apneic oxygenation via the TruView scope and may provide a margin of safety. In sum, the use of the TruView by a well-trained anesthetist may be an alternative for difficult airway management in pediatric patients.

BackgroundIntraosseous (IO) access represents a reliable alternative to intravenous vascular access and is explicitly recommended in the current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council when intravenous access is difficult or impossible. We therefore aimed to study the efficacy of the intraosseous needle driver EZ-IO® in the prehospital setting.MethodsDuring a 24-month period, all cases of prehospital IO access using the EZ-IO® needle driver within three operational areas of emergency medical services were prospectively recorded by a standardized questionnaire that needed to be filled out by the rescuer immediately after the mission and sent to the primary investigator. We determined the rate of successful insertion of the IO needle, the time required, immediate procedure-related complications, the level of previous experience with IO access, and operator's subjective satisfaction with the device.Results77 IO needle insertions were performed in 69 adults and five infants and children by emergency physicians (n = 72 applications) and paramedics (n = 5 applications). Needle placement was successful at the first attempt in all but 2 adults (one patient with unrecognized total knee arthroplasty, one case of needle obstruction after placement). The majority of users (92%) were relative novices with less than five previous IO needle placements. Of 22 responsive patients, 18 reported pain upon fluid administration via the needle. The rescuers' subjective rating regarding handling of the device and ease of needle insertion, as described by means of an analogue scale (0 = entirely unsatisfied, 10 = most satisfied), provided a median score of 10 (range 1-10).ConclusionsThe EZ-IO® needle driver was an efficient alternative to establish immediate out-of-hospital vascular access. However, significant pain upon intramedullary infusion was observed in the majority of responsive patients.

No abstract