Jordan G M, Silsby J, Bayley G, Cook T M
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK.
Anaesthesia. 2007 Jul;62(7):708-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05069.x.
Ten volunteers evaluated the performance of four currently available manikins: Airway Management Trainer, Airway Trainer, Airsim and Bill 1 as simulators for the 16 procedures described in the Difficult Airway Society Guidelines (DAS techniques) and eight other advanced airway techniques (non-DAS techniques), by scoring and ranking each manikin and procedure. Manikin performance was unequal (p < 0.0001 for both SCORE and RANK data for both DAS and non-DAS techniques). Post hoc analysis ranked the manikins for DAS techniques as: 1st Laerdal, 2nd Trucorp, 3rd equal VBM and Ambu. For non-DAS techniques, the ranking was: 1st equal Laerdal and Trucorp, 3rd equal VBM and Ambu. The power to discriminate for individual procedures was considerably lower but for 15 of 16 DAS techniques and 6 of 8 non-DAS techniques, manikin performance differed significantly. Post hoc tests showed significant performance differences between individual manikins for 10 DAS procedures, with the Laerdal manikin performing best.
气道管理训练器、气道训练器、Airsim和Bill 1,将其作为《困难气道协会指南》(DAS技术)中描述的16种操作以及其他八种高级气道技术(非DAS技术)的模拟器,通过对每个人体模型和操作进行评分和排名。人体模型的表现并不相同(DAS和非DAS技术的SCORE和RANK数据的p值均<0.0001)。事后分析将DAS技术的人体模型排名为:第一名Laerdal,第二名Trucorp,第三名并列VBM和Ambu。对于非DAS技术,排名为:第一名并列Laerdal和Trucorp,第三名并列VBM和Ambu。区分各个操作的能力要低得多,但对于16种DAS技术中的15种和8种非DAS技术中的6种,人体模型的表现存在显著差异。事后检验显示,对于10种DAS操作,各个人体模型之间存在显著的性能差异,其中Laerdal人体模型表现最佳