Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Is McGrath® MAC better than Glidescope® Ranger for novice providers in the simulated difficult airway? A randomized manikin study

Full metadata record
DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Wonhe-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Hyuk Joong-
dc.contributor.authorLim, Taeho-
dc.contributor.authorKang, Bo Seung-
dc.contributor.authorOh, Jae hoon-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Sanghyun-
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-07T02:33:52Z-
dc.date.available2022-07-07T02:33:52Z-
dc.date.issued2014-10-
dc.identifier.issn0300-9572-
dc.identifier.issn1873-1570-
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/142572-
dc.description.abstractPurpose of this study: McGrath® MAC and Glidescope® Ranger are portable video laryngoscopes that are easy to learn for novice and useful in difficult airway environment. We anticipated that McGrath® MAC would show performance in intubation of novices as equal as Glidescope® Ranger in normal and difficult airway. Materials and Methods: Primary outcomes were the rate of successful intubation, intubation time and overall glottic view of McGrath® MAC, Glidescope® Ranger and Macintosh. We performed a prospective, single-blinded, randomized crossover study of 39 medical students using three laryngoscopes in a manikin, with simulated normal and difficult airway scenarios. Results: The successful intubation rate of McGrath® MAC (82.5 (38.5)%) was better than Macintosh (57.5 (50.1)%; p = 0.026) and equal to Glidescope® Ranger (85 (36.2)%) at first attempt of easy scenario. However, McGrath® MAC was equal to Macintosh and Glidescope® Ranger from second to fifth attempt. The intubation time of McGrath® MAC (24.4 (14.7) s) was also equal to Glidescope® Ranger (22.2 (8.7) s) and Macintosh laryngoscopes (25.4 (12.2) s). The glottic view of McGrath® MAC (1 (1–1)) was superior to Macintosh (2 (1–2); P = 0.000) and equal to Glidescope® Ranger (1 (1-1)). Novices achieved an equal successful intubation rate when using the McGrath® MAC (94.9 (22.1)%) comparing with Glidescope® Ranger (93.3 (25)%) and Macintosh (92.3 (26.7)%) in difficult scenario (p = 0.725). Intubation times were also similar for three laryngoscopes and became shorter with practice (p = 0.000). The view at laryngoscopy with the McGrath® MAC was better than Macintosh (p = 0.000) and not superior to Glidescope® Ranger (p = 0.001). Conclusions: The rate for successful intubation and intubation time with McGrath® MAC in novices were equal to Glidescope® Ranger and Macintosh laryngoscope. Novices achieved a better glottic view with McGrath® MAC than Macintosh and not in comparison to Glidescope® Ranger in both of airway environments.-
dc.format.extent1-
dc.publisherElsevier BV-
dc.titleIs McGrath® MAC better than Glidescope® Ranger for novice providers in the simulated difficult airway? A randomized manikin study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.publisher.location아일랜드-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.083-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationResuscitation, v.85, no.S1, pp 32 - 32-
dc.citation.titleResuscitation-
dc.citation.volume85-
dc.citation.numberS1-
dc.citation.startPage32-
dc.citation.endPage32-
dc.type.docTypeProceeding-
dc.description.isOpenAccessN-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClasssci-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscie-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscopus-
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
서울 의과대학 > 서울 응급의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Oh, Jae hoon photo

Oh, Jae hoon
서울 의과대학 (DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE