Cited by 14Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesTracheal and airway disordersForeign Body Medical Cases

Evaluation of gum-elastic bougie combined with direct and indirect laryngoscopes in vomitus setting: A randomized simulation trial

Ohchi, Fumihiro, Komasawa, Nobuyasu, Mihara, Ryosuke, Hattori, Kazuo, Minami, Toshiaki·2017·The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Purpose Videolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of vomitus due to blurred images on the monitor. The objective of our study is to compare the utility of gum-elastic bougie (GEB) application for tracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope® (AWS) and McGRATH® MAC (McGRATH) in simulated vomitus settings. Methods Sixteen novice doctors performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH with or without GEB under normal and vomitus simulations. Results In the normal setting the tracheal intubation was successful with the three laryngoscopes regardless of GEB application. In the vomitus setting, the intubation success rate did not significantly improve using McL, while it did using McGRATH or AWS. In the normal settings, GEB application significantly lengthened the intubation time in all three laryngoscopes. By contrast, in the vomitus settings, GEB application significantly shortened the intubation time in all three laryngoscopes. For the comparison of three laryngoscopes, the intubation time did not differ significantly in normal setting, while it was significantly longer in McG and AWS trials than McL trial. Conclusion The GEB application facilitates the tracheal intubation in the vomitus setting using McGRATH and AWS in adult simulation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.032

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most of the literature comparing DL with VL in the bloody or vomitus-filled airway is simulation-based, and concern exists about the vulnerability of VL camera lens in the contaminated airway.

    “Most of the literature comparing DL with VL in the bloody or vomitus-filled airway is simulation-based, and concern exists about the vulnerability of VL camera lens in the contaminated airway.55,56”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [55]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ohchi, F., Komasawa, N., Mihara, R., Hattori, K., & Minami, T.
Corresponding author
Komasawa, Nobuyasu
Venue
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
584-588
ISSN
0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2565750042
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16K16419)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Tracheal and airway disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Foreign Body Medical Cases
Keywords
gum elastic bougie, endotracheal intubation, laryngoscope, Macintosh laryngoscope, indirect laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy, intubation time, airway management, manikin simulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Equipment Design, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Manikins, Time Factors, Video Recording, Vomiting, Laryngoscopes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review