Novel airway training tool that simulates vomiting: suction-assisted laryngoscopy assisted decontamination (SALAD) system
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: We present a novel airway simulation tool that recreates the dynamic challenges associated with emergency airways. The Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy Assisted Decontamination (SALAD) simulation system trains providers to use suction to manage emesis and bleeding complicating intubation. METHODS: We modified a standard difficult-airway mannequin head (Nasco, Ft. Atkinson, WI) with hardware-store equipment to enable simulation of vomiting or hemorrhage during intubation. A pre- and post-survey was used to assess the effectiveness of the SALAD simulator. We used a 1-5 Likert scale to assess confidence in managing the airway of a vomiting patient and comfort with suction techniques before and after the training exercise. RESULTS: Forty learners participated in the simulation, including emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, paramedics, respiratory therapists, and registered nurses. The average Likert score of confidence in managing the airway of a vomiting or hemorrhaging patient pre-session was 3.10±0.49, and post-session 4.13±0.22. The average score of self-perceived skill with suction techniques in the airway scenario pre-session was 3.30±0.43, and post-session 4.03±0.26. The average score for usefulness of the session was 4.68±0.15, and the score for realism of the simulator was 4.65±0.17. CONCLUSION: A training session with the SALAD simulator improved trainee's confidence in managing the airway of a vomiting or hemorrhaging patient. The SALAD simulation system recreates the dynamic challenges associated with emergency airways and holds promise as an airway training tool.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The Ducanto suction-assisted laryngoscopy airway decontamination (SALAD) approach has gained acceptance as a method to manage the soiled airway, although not studied in a clinical setting.
“Although not studied in a clinical setting, the Ducanto suction-assisted laryngoscopy airway decontamination (SALAD) approach has gained acceptance as a method to manage the soiled airway.57,58”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [57]
The Introduction describes SALAD as a simulation-based suction approach for managing vomit or blood in the airway, and the Discussion says the study did not evaluate real-world clinical outcomes. The Results report favorable ratings from 40 learners, but do not establish that the approach had gained acceptance as a clinical method for managing soiled airways. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [1]Gott L Randel G Straker T A survey of airway training among US and Canadian anesthesiology residency programs J Clin Anesth 2001 23 1 15 26 21296243
- [2]Rai M Popat M Evaluation of airway equipment: Man or manikin? Anesthesia 2011 66 1 1 3 21091662
- [3]Prekker M Kwok H Shin J The process of prehospital airway management; challenges and solutions during paramedic endotracheal intubation Crit Care Med 2014 42 1372 8 24589641 PMC4902016
- [4]Combes X Jabre P Jbeili C Prehospital standardization of medical airway management: Incidence and risk factors of difficult airway Acad Emerg Med 2006 13 828 34 16807397
- [5]Gaither J Spaite D Stolz U Prevalence of difficult airway predictors in cases of failed prehospital endotracheal intubation J Emerg Med 2014 47 294 300 24906900
- [6]Mosier J Stolz U Chiu S Difficult airway management in the emergency department: GlideScope videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy J Emerg Med 2012 42 629 34 21911279
- [7]Burns B Habig K Eason H Difficult intubation factors in prehospital rapid sequence intubation by an Australian helicopter emergency medical service Air Med J 2016 35 28 32 26856657
- [8]Gaither J Spaite D Stolz U Prevalence of difficult airway predictors in cases of failed prehospital endotracheal intubation J Emerg Med 2014 47 294 300 24906900
- [9]Combes X Jabre P Jbeili C Prehospital standardization of medical airway management: Incidence and risk factors of difficult airway Acad Emerg Med 2006 13 828 34 16807397
- [10]Burns B Habig K Eason H Difficult intubation factors in prehospital rapid sequence intubation by an Australian helicopter emergency medical service Air Med J 2016 35 28 32 26856657
- [11]Crosby E Cooper R Douglas M The unanticipated difficult airway with recommendations for management Can J Anaesth 1998 45 757 76 9793666
- [12]Mort T Emergency tracheal intubation: Complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts Anesth Analg 2004 99 2 607 13 15271750
- [13]Sakles J Laurin E Rantapaa A Airway management in the emergency department: A one-year study of 610 tracheal intubations Ann Emerg Med 1998 31 325 32 9506489
- [14]Kennedy C Cannon E Warner D Advanced Airway Management Simulation in Medical Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Brit Care Med 2014 42 1 169 78 24220691
- [15]Daglius D Scalabrini N Stress levels during emergency care: A comparison between reality and simulated scenarios J Crit Care 2016 33 8 13 26987261
- [16]Mosier J Malo J Sakles J The Impact of a Comprehensive Airway Management Training Program for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellows: A Three-Year Experience Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014 12 539 48 25715227
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kovacs, G., & Sowers, N. (2018) · Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.emc.2017.08.006 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
- Authors
- DuCanto, J., Serrano, K., & Thompson, R.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thompson, Ryan
- Venue
- Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- California Digital Library (CDL)
- Published
- 2017-01-19
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-120
- ISSN
- 1936-900X (ISSN-L)
- 1936-9018
- PMC
- PMC5226742
- OpenAlex
- W2551322525
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 12.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
- Keywords
- airway management training, airway simulation, suctioning, difficult airway, emergency airway management, trainee confidence, emergency medicine education
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Decontamination, Educational Measurement, Health Personnel, Hemorrhage, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Manikins, Suction, Vomiting
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
