Conventional videolaryngoscope versus 3D printed videolaryngoscope

Abstract

<b>Background and objectives:</b> In patients with Covid-19, using a video laryngoscope as an alternative to direct laryngoscopy is recommended to protect the intubator from infection and reduce intubation failures due to personal protective equipment. The cost of video laryngoscopes limits their availability in all healthcare institutions. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 3D printed video laryngoscope and conventional video laryngoscope on intubation.<br /> <b>Material and methods:</b> 30 ASA I-II patients who were not considered to have a difficult airway were included in the study after obtaining the ethics committee approval from Adnan Menderes University Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 and group 2. After the induction of anesthesia under standard monitoring, the Cormack Lehane score was recorded by direct laryngoscopy in all patients. Patients in group 1 were intubated with a 3D-printed video laryngoscope. In contrast, patients in group 2 were intubated with a conventional video laryngoscope (STORZ C-mac videolaryngoscope). Intubation time, number of attempts, and hemodynamic values of patients with early postoperative complications were recorded. The data were recorded and statistically evaluated.<br /> <b>Results:</b> There were no significant differences between the groups regarding demographic data, BMI, and hemodynamic data. The Cormack Lehane score was calculated as 1.6±0.51 in group 1 and 1.4±0.51 in group 2 (p=0.38). Intubation times of the groups were 32.6±18 s and 27.06±11.37 s, respectively (p=0.4). The number of intubation attempts was 1.2±0.63 in group 1 and 1±0.01 in group 2 (p=0.31). The image quality of the camera by the intubator, intubation conditions, and intubation satisfaction was similar in the two groups.<br /> <b>Conclusion:</b><b> </b>Comparing a 3D-printed videolaryngoscope with a conventional videolaryngoscope, no differences were observed in intubation times, number of intubation attempts, hemodynamic changes, and early postoperative complications. Intubation satisfaction values by the practitioner were found to be similar. It was concluded that the 3D-printed videolaryngoscope, which is cost-effective and easy to access, can be used instead of conventional videolaryngoscope in patients with a normal airway.

Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope, King Vision®, VividTrac®, AirAngel Blade®, and a Custom-Made 3D-Printed Video Laryngoscope for Difficult and Normal Airways in Mannequins by Novices—A Non-Inferiority Trial

“…The relatively poor performance of AAB is in concordance with Ataman et al, who recently found a more than 40% lower first-pass success rate by the AAB compared to GlideScope ® in simulated normal and difficult airways [ 31 ]. Since the 3DVL is our custom-made device, its promising results could not be directly compared to previous studies, but it supports the hypothesis that 3D printing in general could deliver clinically useful VLs [ 30 , 33 ]. Lambert et al 3D printed and tested a channel-bladed “Tansen” VL, which has similar features to our 3DVL.…”

“…Today, 3D-printed VLs are already commercially available, yet scientific studies on performance are only sparsely published [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ].…”