A novel publication goes to enrich the long-living debate on direct laryngoscopy (DL) vs video laryngoscopy (VL) efficacy in emergency intubation.
The recent article, pubblished on JEMS and titled “Deploying the Video Laryngoscope into a Ground EMS System” ,compares the success rate beetwen DL vs VL in a ground EMS Service. The device used was the King Vision with channeled blade. The partecipants had a prior training on the divide, consisting in didactic orientation and practical skills on manikins.
The result of the study shown that “Within the first 100 days of the study, the video laryngoscope utilizing the channeled blade has shown to be at least as effective as DL in relation to first-attempt success” and considering that “the mean experience in our group with DL is nine years, yet the success rate remains unacceptable” “It’s time to consider transition from a skill that’s difficult to obtain and maintain…
View original post 451 more words
Prehospital and Retrieval Medicine - THE PHARM dedicated to the memory of Dr John Hinds 
OK, I consider myself someone who was “in on the ground floor” of video laryngoscopy, at least locally. I had the distinction of obtaining one of the first 3 Glidescope units in the State of Wisconsin circa 2005 (having purchased the used-loaner unit of the former Chicago distributor for one-third the sticker price).
VL units provide illumination and magnification during use. If an endoscopist lacks knowledge of airway anatomy, the magnification element will baffle them–they’ll be lost right out of the gate.
I could/ go on and on, but I won’t. The best VL’s will be in MAC form. The K-Vision (although affordable) has too extreme a blade anle for general use–it’s a specialist device, and as a result, will only work well in some cases. Ambu (who now owns the product) will address this with the creation of MAC style blades. Until then, we wait for the evolution..