Conventional Double-lumen Tube vs VivaSight DL
- Conditions
- Endotracheal Intubation
- Interventions
- Device: VivaSight DLDevice: conventional double-lumen tube
- Registration Number
- NCT02741921
- Lead Sponsor
- Medical University of Warsaw
- Brief Summary
The investigators sought to compare the time to intubation and success rate of the endotracheal intubation using standard double-lumen tube and video tube ETView DL in an adult cadaver model in normal and difficult airway conditions.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 27
- fresh adult cadavers
- cadavers with face injures
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- CROSSOVER
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Normal airway VivaSight DL intubation with normal airway Cormack-Lehane classivication I Normal airway conventional double-lumen tube intubation with normal airway Cormack-Lehane classivication I difficult airway VivaSight DL intubation with difficult airway Cormack-Lehane classivication III difficult airway conventional double-lumen tube intubation with difficult airway Cormack-Lehane classivication III
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Time required for endotracheal intubation 1 day time from pick up the tube to first ventilation
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Time required for visual confirmation of double lumen tube position position 1 day Time required for visual confirmation of double lumen tube position position
success rate of intubation attempt 1 day success rate of first intubation attempt
Ease of intubation 1 day To access subjective opinion about the difficulty of each intubation method, participants were asked to rate it on a visual analog scale (VAS) with a score from 1 (extremely easy) to 10 (extremely difficult).
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Emergency Medicine
🇵🇱Warsaw, Masovia, Poland