The use of a flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) for intubation is an essential airway management skill.
Our primary objective was to compare the effects of simulator training (ORSIM high-fidelity simulator) with no simulation training on the performance of FOB intubation in anaesthetised patients.
Randomised controlled trial.
Single-centre tertiary hospital; trial conducted between April 2015 to May 2016.
Medical students, anaesthesia assistants and anaesthesia residents with experience of less than five FOB intubations from whom informed consent was obtained.
Students, anaesthesia assistants and anaesthesia residents viewed a didactic presentation before performing an initial FOB intubation in an anaesthetised patient. Intubations were recorded and evaluated using the Global Rating Scale (GRS) and checklist scores. Subsequently, participants were randomised to control group (Group CON) and had no simulation training, or to a simulation group (Group SIM) and underwent 60 min of simulation practice. Within a week, participants performed a second FOB intubation and were similarly evaluated.
Pretraining and posttraining intubation time, GRS and checklist scores.
Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In Group SIM, there was significant improvement between pre and posttraining GRS [22.9 ± 8.1 vs. 28.2 ± 7.3, mean difference (95% CI) 5.3 (0.3 to 10.3), P = 0.04], and intubation time [177.6 ± 77.6 vs. 119.3 ± 52.2 s, mean difference (95% CI) -58.4 (-100.3 to -16.5) s, P = 0.01]. There was no difference in Group CON, between pre and posttraining intubation time, GRS or checklist.
We conclude, posttraining performance of FOB intubation, as measured by intubation time and GRS, improved in Group SIM, while it was unchanged in the Group CON. The ORSIM simulator may be a useful adjunct in acquiring FOB intubation skills.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02699242.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,593,230
of 27,788,803 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Anaesthesiology
#459
of 2,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,656
of 370,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Anaesthesiology
#13
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
