Cited 0 time in
Is McGrath® MAC better than Glidescope® Ranger for novice providers in the simulated difficult airway? A randomized manikin study
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Kim, Wonhe | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Choi, Hyuk Joong | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lim, Taeho | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Kang, Bo Seung | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Oh, Jae hoon | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lee, Sanghyun | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-07T02:33:52Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-07-07T02:33:52Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-10 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0300-9572 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1873-1570 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/142572 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Purpose 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.extent | 1 | - |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier BV | - |
| dc.title | Is McGrath® MAC better than Glidescope® Ranger for novice providers in the simulated difficult airway? A randomized manikin study | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.publisher.location | 아일랜드 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.083 | - |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Resuscitation, v.85, no.S1, pp 32 - 32 | - |
| dc.citation.title | Resuscitation | - |
| dc.citation.volume | 85 | - |
| dc.citation.number | S1 | - |
| dc.citation.startPage | 32 | - |
| dc.citation.endPage | 32 | - |
| dc.type.docType | Proceeding | - |
| dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | sci | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
222, Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Korea+82-2-2220-1366
COPYRIGHT © 2024 HANYANG UNIVERSITY.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.
