Authors: JiaQiang Zhang FuShan Xue FanMin Meng
Publish Date: 2016/03/04
Volume: 30, Issue: 4, Pages: 735-735
Abstract
In the recent report by Arslan et al 1 comparing facetoface intubation using Airtraq Glidescope and Fastrach devices in adult patients we believe there are design limitations that make interpretation of their findings questionable The aim of their study was to evaluate the performance of three devices for emergency intubation in a prehospital environment however it was conducted in a controlled environment ie intubation was performed in anesthetized paralyzed patients lying on an operating table under room light In an actual prehospital situation emergency intubation is often required to be conducted in patients lying on the ground in direct daylight A common flaw of videolaryngoscopes including Airtraq and Glidescope is that reflection of the sunlight on the video monitors may make it difficult to see the glottis in daylight 2 Moreover the height of the operating table can affect the performance of laryngoscopic intubation In addition comparing intubation times with three devices is not entirely appropriate The ventilatory capacity of the Fastrach device is arguably equally important to its effectiveness as an intubation conduit during airway resuscitation If intubation via the Fastrach device fails the presence of an effective airway can evidently be lifesaving
Keywords: