Home  About us  Contact
 

Disposable Blade (disposable + blade)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

A comparison of the Glidescope® and Karl Storz DCI® videolaryngoscopes in a paediatric manikin,

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 8 2010
D. M. Hurford
Summary A new paediatric Glidescope® (Cobalt GVL® Stat) has recently become available. This varies in design from the Karl Storz DCI® videolaryngoscope, as it possesses a short curved disposable blade compared with the narrower straighter blade of the Storz®. We compared the time taken for tracheal intubation under normal and difficult intubation conditions in a paediatric manikin. A total of 32 anaesthetists completed four intubations in a random order, with each participant blinded to the airway condition. We hypothesised there would be no difference between the devices. The results showed no difference in tracheal intubation time between the Glidescope and the Storz videolaryngoscope. The mean (SD) times under normal conditions were 18.8 (5.2) s vs 19.9 (6.1) s, (p = 0.16), respectively. Under difficult conditions the times were 22.6 (10.5) vs 27.0 (14.2) s, (p = 0.13), respectively. There were no differences in the visual analogue scores for field of view, ease of use, willingness to use in an emergency, and overall satisfaction. [source]

Another type of critical incident with a disposable blade

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 4 2009
M. Mackenzie
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Evaluation of the disposable Vital ViewÔ laryngoscope

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 4 2001
apparatus
The Vital ViewÔ laryngoscope (Vital Signs, NJ, USA) consists of a plastic disposable blade containing a fibrelight and a non-disposable handle; there is therefore no need to sterilise the blade and no concern about disintegration of the fibrelight. In a random cross-over design, we compared the Vital View laryngoscope with a conventional metal fibrelight laryngoscope (Welch Allyn, NY, USA) in 100 patients. The Vital View laryngoscope produced a brighter field than the metal laryngoscope (p < 0.001), whereas there was no significant difference in the view of the glottis or the success rate of tracheal intubation. In no patient did any problem occur, such as damage to the laryngoscope blade or loss of light during laryngoscopy. In another 10 patients, prevention of light emission from the side of the laryngoscope blade reduced the brightness (p < 0. 01). This indicated that the brightness of the Vital View laryngoscope is produced by light emission not only from the tip of the blade but also from the side of the blade. Therefore, the disposable Vital View laryngoscope can be used as effectively as a conventional non-disposable laryngoscope. [source]

Illumination of Bulb-on-blade Laryngoscopes in the Out-of-hospital Setting

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 5 2007
Ka Wai Cheung MD
ObjectivesTo determine what percentage of out-of-hospital laryngoscopes meet a predetermined minimal illumination criterion and what factors may be altered to improve illumination. MethodsThis was an observational study of the illumination of laryngoscopes currently in use by the Emergency Health Services of Nova Scotia. Each laryngoscope was measured at baseline. This illumination was compared with the illumination after replacement with new batteries, replacement with a new bulb, replacement with new batteries and a new bulb together, and attachment of a disposable blade. The percentage of laryngoscopes that met a previously defined minimal brightness criterion was determined. ResultsFifty-one laryngoscopes were measured. These laryngoscopes had a mean (±SD) illumination of 624 (±297) lux at baseline. Laryngoscope illumination increased after replacement with new batteries by 168 lux (95% confidence interval [CI] = 121 to 216), replacement with a new bulb by 679 lux (95% CI = 524 to 834), replacement with new batteries and a new bulb by 937 lux (95% CI = 770 to 1,104), and attachment of a disposable blade by 2,401 lux (95% CI = 2,075 to 2,740). Fourteen percent of laryngoscopes (7/51) at baseline met the minimal illumination criterion. ConclusionsOnly a small percentage of out-of-hospital laryngoscopes met the minimal illumination criterion. There was a statistically significant increase in illumination after replacement with new batteries, replacement with a new bulb, replacement with new batteries and a new bulb, or attachment of a disposable blade. Optimal changing of lightbulbs and batteries in the out-of-hospital setting will have to be more clearly defined. [source]