Header bg
  • Users Online: 73
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Header bg
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 88-92

Plastic screen versus aerosol box as a barrier during endotracheal intubation: A simulation-based crossover study


Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amal Francis Sam
Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_241_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-2019 pandemic has posed significant challenges and barrier devices such as aerosol/intubation box, intubation tent, and intubation screen have been widely used during endotracheal intubation by the clinicians without any definite proven benefit. The initial experience at our institute with the intubation box posed some difficulties leading to failed intubations. Hence, as an alternative, we switched to a transparent plastic intubation screen that is likely to provide better vision and space during intubation. We evaluated the impact of intubation box and plastic screen on intubations in this simulation-based crossover study. Materials and Methods: Ten anesthesiologists performed 90 intubations in an operating room on a Laerdal® adult airway management trainer. Each participant performed 9 intubations, 3 without any barrier and 3 each with intubation box and plastic screen. The primary outcome was intubation time; secondary outcomes included first-pass success and breaches to personal protective equipment. Results: Intubation time with no barrier was significantly shorter than with the intubation box (median interquartile range [IQR]: 25 [22–28] vs. 40 [30–51] s, P < 0.001) and with the screen (median [IQR] 29 [25–35] s, P = 0.015). The intubation time was significantly lesser with the screen compared to the box (P = 0.023). The first-pass success was 86.66%, 96.66%, and 100% in the box, screen, and no barrier groups, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison to an intubation box, the transparent plastic screen decreases intubation times and has greater operator comfort. These devices require further evaluation for patient safety.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed212    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal