+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comprehensive evaluation of manikin-based airway training with second generation supraglottic airway devices

      Read this article at

          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.



          Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are an essential second line tool during difficult airway management after failed tracheal intubation. Particularly for such challenging situations the handling of an SAD requires sufficient training. We hypothesized that the feasibility of manikin-based airway management with second generation SADs depends on the type of manikin.


          Two airway manikins (TruCorp AirSim ® and Laerdal Resusci Anne ® Airway Trainer™) were evaluated by 80 experienced anesthesia providers using 5 different second generation SADs (LMA ® Supreme™ [LMA], Ambu ® AuraGain™, i-gel ®, KOO™-SGA and LTS-D™). The primary outcome of the study was feasibility of ventilation measured by assessment of the manikins’ lung distention. As secondary outcome measures, oropharyngeal leakage pressure (OLP), ease of gastric tube insertion the insertion time, position and subjective assessments were evaluated.


          Ventilation was feasible with all combinations of SAD and manikin. By contrast, an OLP exceeding 10 cm H 2O could be reached with most of the SADs in the TruCorp but with the LTS-D only in the Laerdal manikin. Gastric tube insertion was successful in above 90% in the Laerdal vs 87% in the TruCorp manikin ( P<0.009). Insertion times differed significantly between manikins. The SAD positions were better in the Laerdal manikin for LMA, Ambu, i-gel and LTS-D. Participant’s assessments were superior in the Laerdal manikin for LMA, Ambu, i-gel and KOO-SGA.


          Ventilation is possible with all combinations. However, manikins are variable in their ability to adequately represent additional functions of second generation SADs. In order to achieve the best performance during training, the airway manikin should be chosen depending on the SAD in question.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

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

          Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. From a pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35,226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I(2)>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support.

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

              Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients.

              We have compared four tests for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) to test the hypothesis that airway sealing pressure and inter-observer reliability differ between tests. We studied 80 paralysed, anaesthetized adult patients. Four different airway sealing pressure tests were performed in random order on each patient by two observers blinded to each other's measurements: test 1 involved detection of an audible noise; test 2 was detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide in the oral cavity; test 3 was observation of the aneroid manometer dial as the pressure increased to note the airway pressure at which the dial reached stability; and test 4 was detection of an audible noise by neck auscultation. Mean airway sealing pressure ranged from 19.5 to 21.3 cm H2O and intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.95-0.99. Inter-observer reliability of all tests was classed as excellent. The manometric stability test had a higher mean airway sealing pressure (P < 0.0001) and better inter-observer reliability (P < 0.0001) compared with the three other tests. We conclude that for clinical purposes all four tests are excellent, but that the manometric stability test may be more appropriate for researchers comparing airway sealing pressures.

                Author and article information

                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                01 March 2019
                : 15
                : 367-376
                Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany, axel.schmutz@ 123456uniklinik-freiburg.de
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Axel Schmutz, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany, Tel +49 761 270 23060, Fax +49 761 270 23960, Email axel.schmutz@ 123456uniklinik-freiburg.de
                © 2019 Schmutz et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article