Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment
Summary A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Anaesthesia 2011-12, Vol.66 (s2), p.57-64 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 64 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | s2 |
| container_start_page | 57 |
| container_title | Anaesthesia |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Behringer, E. C. Kristensen, M. S. |
| description | Summary
A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance of new vs traditional direct laryngoscopes, their complications, their use in awake intubation techniques and the prediction of unsuccessful intubation with new devices are reviewed. Manikin studies are of limited value in this area. We conclude that in both predicted and unpredicted difficult or failed intubation, carefully selected new intubation equipment has a high success rate for tracheal intubation. Ideally, such devices should be available in all settings where tracheal intubation is performed. Most importantly, experience and competence with any of the new devices are critical for their successful use in any clinical setting. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06935.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_909288532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2507471291</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5125-c4cea98889938f72e7101037656285820235518dc6c61ad57f6d5e7ffee215fa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-BQlePCXO7maTDYJQSv2Aohc9L-lmFhKSTZtN-vHvTdrqwZNzmYF55mV4CPEoBLSvhyKgPBI-gzAMGFAaQJRwEezOyPh3cU7GAMB9FkIyIlfOFQCUSSovyYgxiEOQMCaP802eodXombrxlmjR5K23cZ6tN1i2ey-3nsVt39pumbZ5bT1cd_mqQttekwuTlg5vTn1Cvp7nn7NXf_Hx8jabLnwtKBO-DjWmiZQySbg0McOYAgUeRyJiUkgGjAtBZaYjHdE0E7GJMoGxMYiMCpPyCbk_5q6aet2ha1WVO41lmVqsO6cSSJiUgrOevPtDFnXX2P65HmIyFOEBkkdIN7VzDRq1avIqbfaKghr0qkINFtVgUQ161UGv2vWnt6f8bllh9nv447MHno7ANi9x_-9gNX2fzoeRfwM8VYa6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>902845432</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Behringer, E. C. ; Kristensen, M. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Behringer, E. C. ; Kristensen, M. S.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance of new vs traditional direct laryngoscopes, their complications, their use in awake intubation techniques and the prediction of unsuccessful intubation with new devices are reviewed. Manikin studies are of limited value in this area. We conclude that in both predicted and unpredicted difficult or failed intubation, carefully selected new intubation equipment has a high success rate for tracheal intubation. Ideally, such devices should be available in all settings where tracheal intubation is performed. Most importantly, experience and competence with any of the new devices are critical for their successful use in any clinical setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2409</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06935.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22074080</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Equipment Design ; Forecasting ; Humans ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation ; Laryngoscopes ; Laryngoscopy ; Medical equipment ; Throat ; Treatment Outcome ; Wakefulness</subject><ispartof>Anaesthesia, 2011-12, Vol.66 (s2), p.57-64</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><rights>2011 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5125-c4cea98889938f72e7101037656285820235518dc6c61ad57f6d5e7ffee215fa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5125-c4cea98889938f72e7101037656285820235518dc6c61ad57f6d5e7ffee215fa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2044.2011.06935.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2044.2011.06935.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,1430,27907,27908,45557,45558,46392,46816</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074080$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Behringer, E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, M. S.</creatorcontrib><title>Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment</title><title>Anaesthesia</title><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><description>Summary
A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance of new vs traditional direct laryngoscopes, their complications, their use in awake intubation techniques and the prediction of unsuccessful intubation with new devices are reviewed. Manikin studies are of limited value in this area. We conclude that in both predicted and unpredicted difficult or failed intubation, carefully selected new intubation equipment has a high success rate for tracheal intubation. Ideally, such devices should be available in all settings where tracheal intubation is performed. Most importantly, experience and competence with any of the new devices are critical for their successful use in any clinical setting.</description><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Laryngoscopes</subject><subject>Laryngoscopy</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Throat</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Wakefulness</subject><issn>0003-2409</issn><issn>1365-2044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-BQlePCXO7maTDYJQSv2Aohc9L-lmFhKSTZtN-vHvTdrqwZNzmYF55mV4CPEoBLSvhyKgPBI-gzAMGFAaQJRwEezOyPh3cU7GAMB9FkIyIlfOFQCUSSovyYgxiEOQMCaP802eodXombrxlmjR5K23cZ6tN1i2ey-3nsVt39pumbZ5bT1cd_mqQttekwuTlg5vTn1Cvp7nn7NXf_Hx8jabLnwtKBO-DjWmiZQySbg0McOYAgUeRyJiUkgGjAtBZaYjHdE0E7GJMoGxMYiMCpPyCbk_5q6aet2ha1WVO41lmVqsO6cSSJiUgrOevPtDFnXX2P65HmIyFOEBkkdIN7VzDRq1avIqbfaKghr0qkINFtVgUQ161UGv2vWnt6f8bllh9nv447MHno7ANi9x_-9gNX2fzoeRfwM8VYa6</recordid><startdate>201112</startdate><enddate>201112</enddate><creator>Behringer, E. C.</creator><creator>Kristensen, M. S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201112</creationdate><title>Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment</title><author>Behringer, E. C. ; Kristensen, M. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5125-c4cea98889938f72e7101037656285820235518dc6c61ad57f6d5e7ffee215fa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Laryngoscopes</topic><topic>Laryngoscopy</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Throat</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Wakefulness</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Behringer, E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, M. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Behringer, E. C.</au><au>Kristensen, M. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment</atitle><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><date>2011-12</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>s2</issue><spage>57</spage><epage>64</epage><pages>57-64</pages><issn>0003-2409</issn><eissn>1365-2044</eissn><abstract>Summary
A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance of new vs traditional direct laryngoscopes, their complications, their use in awake intubation techniques and the prediction of unsuccessful intubation with new devices are reviewed. Manikin studies are of limited value in this area. We conclude that in both predicted and unpredicted difficult or failed intubation, carefully selected new intubation equipment has a high success rate for tracheal intubation. Ideally, such devices should be available in all settings where tracheal intubation is performed. Most importantly, experience and competence with any of the new devices are critical for their successful use in any clinical setting.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22074080</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06935.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-2409 |
| ispartof | Anaesthesia, 2011-12, Vol.66 (s2), p.57-64 |
| issn | 0003-2409 1365-2044 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_909288532 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content |
| subjects | Equipment Design Forecasting Humans Intubation Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation Laryngoscopes Laryngoscopy Medical equipment Throat Treatment Outcome Wakefulness |
| title | Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T21%3A08%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evidence%20for%20benefit%20vs%20novelty%20in%20new%20intubation%20equipment&rft.jtitle=Anaesthesia&rft.au=Behringer,%20E.%20C.&rft.date=2011-12&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=s2&rft.spage=57&rft.epage=64&rft.pages=57-64&rft.issn=0003-2409&rft.eissn=1365-2044&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06935.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2507471291%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=902845432&rft_id=info:pmid/22074080&rfr_iscdi=true |