A comparison of the use of Trachlight® and Eschmann multiple-use introducer in simulated difficult intubation

Harvey, K.; Davies, R.; Evans, Alan W.; Latto, I. P.; Hall, Judith Elizabeth

doi:10.1017/s0265021506001177

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In previous studies, both devices had shown excellent success rates at the first attempt. The success rate at the first attempt using Glidescope was reported to be 90-94.4% [ 3 , 11 , 14 ], and that of Lightwand was reported to be 78-96.8 [ 15 , 16 ]. These high success rates at the first attempt correspond with the results of our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Glidescope and Lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with a simulated difficult airway

Yang

Jeong

Song

et al. 2015

Korean J Anesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough Lightwand and Glidescope have both shown high success rates for intubation, there has been no confirmation as to which device is most effective for difficult endotracheal intubation. We compared the Glidescope and Lightwand devices in terms of duration of intubation and success rate at the first attempt in a simulated difficult airway situation.MethodsFifty-eight patients were randomized to undergo tracheal intubation with either the Glidescope (Glidescope group, n = 29) or the Lightwand (Lightwand group, n = 29). All patients were fitted with a semi-hard cervical collar in order to simulate a difficult airway, and intubation was attempted with the assigned airway device. The data collected included the rate of successful endotracheal intubation, the number of attempts required, the duration of the intubation, as well as the interincisor distance, hemodynamic variables, and adverse effects.ResultsThere was no difference between Glidescope group (92.6%) and Lightwand group (96.4%) in terms of success rate for the first attempt at intubation. The duration of successful intubation for the first tracheal intubation attempt was significantly longer in Glidescope group than in Lightwand group (46.9 sec vs 29.5 sec, P = 0.001). All intubations were completed successfully within two intubation attempts. The incidence of hypertension was significantly higher in Glidescope group than in Lightwand group (51.9% vs 17.9%, P = 0.008).ConclusionsIn a simulated difficult airway situation, endotracheal intubation using Lightwand yielded a shorter duration of intubation and lower incidence of hypertension than when using Glidescope.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Glidescope and Lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with a simulated difficult airway

Yang

Jeong

Song

et al. 2015

Korean J Anesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a previous study, the initial intubation success rate was 80% using the conventional lightwand technique in a simulated difficult airway . Anticipating a 15% increase in the initial success rate using the Optiscope, 76 patients in each group would be needed with an alpha of 0.05 (two‐tailed) and a beta of 0.8.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective randomised study of a rigid video‐stylet vs. conventional lightwand intubation in cervical spine‐immobilised patients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with a lightwand which is used blind, Optiscope , a rigid video-stylet, can provide direct imaging of airway structures, potentially offering improved conditions in cervical spine-immobilised patients. We randomly assigned 168 patients who required cervical immobilisation during tracheal intubation to use of the Optiscope or the lightwand. The initial intubation success rate (95% CI) was 90 (82-95)% with the Optiscope and 87 (78-93)% with the lightwand (p = 0.626). Median (IQR [range]) intubation time was longer (19 (12-41 [5-195] s vs. 15 (8-29 [3-117] s; p = 0.016), and there were fewer scooping movements (1 (1-2 [0-9]) vs. 2 (1-3 [0-14]); p = 0.002) when using the Optiscope compared with the lightwand. The incidence of postoperative airway complications was similar in the two groups. The devices were equivalent with respect to initial intubation success rate but the Optiscope yielded slightly longer intubating times.

show abstract

“…The lighted stylet (lightwand, Surch-Lite, Aaron Medical Industries, St Petersburg, Florida, USA) has been reported to be a useful alternative in the case of difficult or impossible laryngoscopic intubation for both anticipated and unanticipated situations, [1][2][3][4] and may be used as a low-technology device in countries where fiberoptic/endoscopic laryngoscopes are not available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A double bending lightwand can provide more successful endotracheal intubation in patients with a short thyromental distance

Jeon

Lim

et al. 2011

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparison of the use of Trachlight® and Eschmann multiple-use introducer in simulated difficult intubation

Abstract: The Trachlight is a potentially useful alternative to the Eschmann multiple-use introducer in difficult intubation.

Cited by 13 publications

References 39 publications

Comparison between Glidescope and Lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with a simulated difficult airway

Comparison between Glidescope and Lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with a simulated difficult airway

A prospective randomised study of a rigid video‐stylet vs. conventional lightwand intubation in cervical spine‐immobilised patients

A double bending lightwand can provide more successful endotracheal intubation in patients with a short thyromental distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About