37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Videolaryngoscopy using an Android smartphone: A direct digital technique

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sir, Direct laryngoscopy has been the standard of care in securing the airway, in both routine and emergent cases. Videolaryngoscopy, introduced about a decade earlier aims to overcome the limitations of direct laryngoscopy. Some of the disadvantages of direct laryngoscopy include the need for an optimal line of sight for glottic visualisation, greater cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy, a lack of visual feedback for other healthcare providers during resuscitation and for novices undergoing training in laryngoscopy, and lack of image archiving capability.[1 2] Despite the advantages, the high initial cost of investment remains a deterrent for the widespread adoption of videolaryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy.[3] Videolaryngoscopy may be done inexpensively. The use of complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensors attached to the blade of a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope should suffice. The authors, in an earlier study, demonstrated the use of a low cost universal serial bus (USB) endoscope camera assembled on a Macintosh laryngoscope, to perform videolaryngoscopy.[4] The device used the video processing capabilities of a personal computer to display real time video. The evolution of this technique could then be to utilise the high quality display and graphical processing present in the ubiquitous smartphone, keeping the initial and recurring costs of the technique low. For technical reasons, the use of smartphones for displaying the video stream from an USB endoscope camera is not simple. We chose the Android smartphone operating system (OS) V3.1 or higher (checked using “about device” menu of the OS), that supports the USB on-the-go (OTG) host function. This feature allows direct interfacing of the USB camera with the mobile device using an USB OTG cable. Apple OS devices do not support a similar capability due to restrictions in its use of its host-capable USB port. Initial attempts at obtaining a video stream were unsuccessful, due to lack of inbuilt USB video class drivers in the Android OS kernel of several mobile devices. We attempted to recreate this functionality with open source custom software that processes the USB video stream directly in Google Nexus 2012 Android mobile device.[5] However, a high quality video recording was obtained in most of the mobile devices that we tested, by using “CameraFi” (Vault Micro Inc., Seoul, Korea) app freely downloaded from the online Google Play Store at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vaultmicro. CameraFi. The USB endoscope camera was disinfected prior to use, assembled and upright orientation done as described in our earlier study.[4] The USB camera was fixed about 40 mm from the tip of a Macintosh blade (size 3 or 4) using clean adhesive tape (Durapore, 3M Inc., USA). The application supported capture of high quality images as well as real time video capture Figure 1. The camera required minimal electrical power supplied through the USB port of the mobile device. The electrical safety of the camera was ensured due its completely insulated, waterproof casing. We had successfully tested this assembly for videolaryngoscopy in an adult mannequin. The mouth opening required by the USB camera-blade assembly was the same as that for a conventional Macintosh blade. Figure 1 Real time video capture from universal serial bus endoscope camera using CameraFi app in Android operating system This technique used readily available components with minor modification of a conventional laryngoscope. The technique involves direct digital transmission of the image to a smartphone through its USB port, without the use of cumbersome, optical-based smartphone adapters such as the Airtraq Universal Phone adapter (Prodol Meditec S.A, Vizcaya, Spain) that may affect image quality. Newer USB endoscope cameras of 5.5 mm diameter, 2 m cable length are available from online retailers, which are inexpensive, costing <10$, for example, at http://www.tomtop.com/product?q=endoscope+borescope. Future efforts would involve developing medical grade, 3D-printed laryngoscope conduits that encase the USB camera, conforming to all regulatory standards. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway.

          Video laryngoscopy may be useful in the setting of the difficult airway, but it remains unclear if intubation success is improved in routine difficult airway management. This study compared success rates for tracheal intubation with the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) with conventional direct laryngoscopy in patients with predicted difficult airway. We conducted a two arm, single-blinded randomized controlled trial that involved 300 patients. Inclusion required at least one of four predictors of difficult intubation. The primary outcome was successful tracheal intubation on first attempt. The use of video laryngoscopy resulted in more successful intubations on first attempt (138/149; 93%) as compared with direct laryngoscopy (124/147; 84%), P = 0.026. Cormack-Lehane laryngeal view was graded I or II in 139/149 of C-MAC attempts versus 119/147 in direct laryngoscopy attempts (P < 0.01). Laryngoscopy time averaged 46 s (95% CI, 40-51) for the C-MAC group and was shorter in the direct laryngoscopy group, 33 s (95% CI, 29-36), P < 0.001. The use of a gum-elastic bougie and/or external laryngeal manipulation were required less often in the C-MAC intubations (24%, 33/138) compared with direct laryngoscopy (37%, 46/124, P = 0.020). The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the C-MAC (20%, 27/138) versus direct laryngoscopy (13%, 16/124, P = 0.146). A diverse group of anesthesia providers achieved a higher intubation success rate on first attempt with the C-MAC in a broad range of patients with predictors of difficult intubation. C-MAC laryngoscopy seems to be a useful technique for the initial approach to a potentially difficult airway.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.

            In the critically ill undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, multiple attempts are often required with a higher complication rate due to the urgency, uncontrolled setting, comorbidities, and variability in expertise of operators. We hypothesized that Glidescope video laryngoscopy would be superior to direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Anaesth
                Indian J Anaesth
                IJA
                Indian Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0019-5049
                0976-2817
                February 2016
                : 60
                : 2
                : 143-145
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Anaesthesiology, Universal Hospital, Abu Dhabi, UAE
                [1 ]Royal Flying Doctor Service, Queensland, Australia
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. John George Karippacheril, Universal Hospital, PO Box 5056, Abu Dhabi, UAE. E-mail: johngeorgedon@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                IJA-60-143
                10.4103/0019-5049.176288
                4787131
                27013759
                809e6aee-dafc-4793-a16d-611e0f8e4b5e
                Copyright: © Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                Categories
                Letters to Editor

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article