Takata Marina, Nishikawa Mika, Eguchi Satoru, Takata Kaori, Kinoshita Hiroyuki, Kawahito Shinji
Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, JPN.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, JPN.
Cureus. 2024 Aug 7;16(8):e66400. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66400. eCollection 2024 Aug.
Background A disposable i-view video laryngoscope (Intersurgical Limited, Berkshire, United Kingdom) is yet to be used to educate medical and dental students, who must learn endotracheal intubation skills. Additionally, the advantage of the i-view use for the purpose, compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, is unknown. We aimed to first determine whether the i-view video laryngoscope enhances endotracheal intubation skills among dental students compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Methodology A prospective, observational, simulation study was conducted among 67 dental students in their sixth clinical year of education. Intubation skills were evaluated on a computer-assisted simulator with a standardized manikin. Each student was asked to intubate using the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and the i-view video laryngoscope in the trachea of the simulator's manikin. We collected objective data, including the retroflection angle of the manikin, the maxillary incisor contact pressure, time from picking up the laryngoscope to ventilation, intubation success, and intubation delay. Each student was further asked to grade their subjective evaluation concerning the visual field, Cormack and Lehane classification, operability, stability, needed force for intubation, and easiness during intubation. Results Enrolled dental students quoted that the i-view video laryngoscope demonstrated better visual field, Cormack and Lehane classification, operability, and stability than the Macintosh laryngoscope. However, they felt intubation easiness could have been better using Macintosh than i-view. Intubation time, failure rate, and delay rate did not differ between the two laryngoscopes. Nevertheless, the maxillary incisor contact pressure (median interquartile range (IQR)) during the intubation increased in the i-view intubation compared with Macintosh (32 (24 to 41) vs. 25 (18 to 35) N, p = 0.010). Conclusions We first demonstrated that the i-view video laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope does not enhance the endotracheal intubation skills of dental students. However, the possible repeated use as an educational simulator training tool may add some advantages to the experience of video laryngoscope in both medical and dental students.
背景 一次性使用的i-view视频喉镜（Intersurgical有限公司，伯克希尔，英国）尚未用于培训必须学习气管插管技能的医科和牙科学生。此外，与麦金托什喉镜相比，使用i-view视频喉镜用于该目的的优势尚不清楚。我们旨在首先确定与麦金托什喉镜相比，i-view视频喉镜是否能提高牙科学生的气管插管技能。
方法 对67名处于临床教育第六年的牙科学生进行了一项前瞻性、观察性模拟研究。在配备标准化人体模型的计算机辅助模拟器上评估插管技能。要求每名学生分别使用传统的麦金托什喉镜和i-view视频喉镜在模拟器人体模型的气管内进行插管。我们收集了客观数据，包括人体模型的后仰角度、上颌切牙接触压力、从拿起喉镜到通气的时间、插管成功率和插管延迟。进一步要求每名学生对视野、科马克和莱哈尼分级、可操作性、稳定性、插管所需力量以及插管过程中的难易程度进行主观评价。
结果 参与研究的牙科学生称，i-view视频喉镜在视野、科马克和莱哈尼分级、可操作性和稳定性方面比麦金托什喉镜表现更好。然而，他们感觉使用麦金托什喉镜进行插管比使用i-view视频喉镜更容易。两种喉镜的插管时间、失败率和延迟率没有差异。尽管如此，与麦金托什喉镜相比，使用i-view视频喉镜插管时上颌切牙接触压力（中位数四分位间距（IQR））增加（32（24至41）N比25（18至35）N，p = 0.010）。
结论 我们首次证明，与麦金托什喉镜相比，i-view视频喉镜并不能提高牙科学生的气管插管技能。然而，作为教育模拟器训练工具可能的重复使用，可能会给医科和牙科学生使用视频喉镜的体验增添一些优势。
