Efficacy of RAMA Mobile Video Laryngoscope (RAMA-mVL) for Tracheal Intubation in Manikin: A Randomized Study

Main Article Content

Panvilai Tangkulpanich
Natsinee Athinartrattanapong
Porawin Ussawapitanon
Phanorn Chalermdamrichai
Jarupol Tuangsirisup

Abstract

Background: Video laryngoscope (VL) is a tool that has increased the intubation success rate, but it is expensive and difficult to carry outside the hospital. Ramathibodi mobile Video laryngoscope (RAMA-mVL) thus was invented for having effectiveness equivalent to the current device and lower price.


Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intubation by comparing between RAMA-mVL and McGrath®.


Methods: This study conducted a randomized, single-blinded study in manikin comparing RAMA-mVL and McGrath®. Medical personnel with intubation experiences were included and will be trained in 2 devices before performing the procedures. Intubation success rate, time to intubation, satisfaction, and the cost between both VLs were compared.


Results: A total of 208 persons were enrolled in the research, 104 in each group. The first pass succession rate for intubation by using both VLs is 100%. Time to intubation using RAMA-mVL was significantly less than that of McGrath® (mean [SD], 9.12 [4.28] and 11.19 [5.04] seconds, respectively; P = .002). The 5-point Likert scale in satisfaction rate on the easy to build in RAMA-mVL and McGrath® were mean (SD) of 4.88 (0.32) and 4.23 (0.96) points respectively (95% CI, 0.46 - 0.85; P < .001). Additionally, the cost of RAMA-mVL was cheaper than McGrath®.


Conclusions: The first pass intubation success rate in a manikin of RAMA-mVL is equivalent to McGrath®. The cost of RAMA-mVL is cheaper.


 

Article Details

How to Cite
Tangkulpanich, P., Athinartrattanapong, N., Ussawapitanon, P., Chalermdamrichai, P., & Tuangsirisup, J. (2021). Efficacy of RAMA Mobile Video Laryngoscope (RAMA-mVL) for Tracheal Intubation in Manikin: A Randomized Study. Ramathibodi Medical Journal, 44(4), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.33165/rmj.2021.44.4.249901
Section
Original Articles

References

Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(1):32-37. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318190b6a7

Timmermann A, Russo SG, Crozier TA, et al. Novices ventilate and intubate quicker and safer via intubating laryngeal mask than by conventional bag-mask ventilation and laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(4):570-576. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000281940.92807.23

Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, von Goedecke A, Keller C. Guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to conventional tracheal intubation by first-month anesthesia residents after brief manikin-only training. Anesth Analg. 2006;103(2):458-462. doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000223679.14471.6c

Kim KN, Jeong MA, Oh YN, Kim SY, Kim JY. Efficacy of Pentax airway scope versus Macintosh laryngoscope when used by novice personnel: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(1):258-271. doi:10.1177/0300060517726229

Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, Savoldelli GL, Nabecker S, Theiler LG. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(5):670-679. doi:10.1093/bja/aew058

Mosier J, Chiu S, Patanwala AE, Sakles JC. A comparison of the GlideScope video laryngoscope to the C-MAC video laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(4):414-420.e1. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.001

Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2015;95:100-147. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.016

Boedeker BH, Nicholsal TA 4th, Carpenter J, et al. A comparison of direct versus indirect laryngoscopic visualization during endotracheal intubation of lightly embalmed cadavers utilizing the GlideScope®, Storz Medi Pack Mobile Imaging System™ and the New Storz CMAC™ videolaryngoscope. J Spec Oper Med. 2011;11(2):21-29.

Szarpak L, Karczewska K, Evrin T, Kurowski A, Czyzewski L. Comparison of intubation through the McGrath MAC, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller Laryngoscope by paramedics during child CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(7):946-950. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.017

Eberlein CM, Luther IS, Carpenter TA, Ramirez LD. First-Pass success intubations using video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy: a retrospective prehospital ambulance service study. Air Med J. 2019;38(5):356-358. doi:10.1016/j.amj.2019.06.004