NCT06091644

Brief Summary

Video laryngoscopy (VL) have certain advantages over other techniques, such as better glottic imaging, higher intubation success in individuals with difficult airways, less force required for intubation, less cervical spine movement, and better image capturing overall. Some experts have recently suggested that the VL should be accepted and used as the standard technique for imaging in all emergency intubations, not just difficult intubations. However, VL is often not accessible in low-income countries because of its high costs. Additionally, hospitals may not be able to reach the devices even if they can cover the cost in cases where the demand is excessive. Three dimensional (3D) printing is the technology of producing objects in 3D from an existing or designed digital file. This rapidly developing technology is already used in many areas of daily life and has also been widely used in medical applications. 3D printers produce many expensive medical materials and devices at lower costs, enable personalized modeling (implants and prostheses), tissue cultures, and surgical planning, and can also be used as educational material. One of these applications is 3D-printed VL (3D-PVL), which has become prominent in pandemic conditions. A 3D-PVL can be obtained for only 6-30 United States dollars (USD) compared to a VL that costs thousands of US dollars. Moreover, a study comparing 3D-PVL with standard VL in difficult airway management for experienced practitioners demonstrated comparable success rates in both devices. Furthermore, the VL created by modifying a Macintosh® laryngoscope (MCL) with an endoscope camera was reported superior to the standard MCL and comparable to the standard VL in the hands of experienced users. However, the literature presented no study that evaluated the efficiency of 3D-PVLs in inexperienced practitioners. Herein, our study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of 3D-PVLs in acquiring endotracheal intubation (ETI) skills in senior medical school students who are inexperienced users and compare 3D-PVL with standard MCL and VL.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
126

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Nov 2020

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

November 1, 2020

Completed
1.2 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

January 31, 2022

Completed
28 days until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

February 28, 2022

Completed
1.6 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

October 10, 2023

Completed
9 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

October 19, 2023

Completed
Last Updated

October 19, 2023

Status Verified

October 1, 2023

Enrollment Period

1.2 years

First QC Date

October 10, 2023

Last Update Submit

October 14, 2023

Conditions

Keywords

Videolaryngoscope3-D printing3-Dimensional Printing

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Effectiveness of 3D printed videolaryngoscope

    It is a mannequin study that aims to compare a videolaryngoscope produced with 3D printing with a Storz videolaryngoscope and a Macintosh direct laryngoscope in the hands of inexperienced users in terms of intubation success. Accurate ETT placement was evaluated by visual confirmation of the swelling of the lungs on the manikin. The intubation attempt was considered unsuccessful if the manikin's stomach was filled with air. Conversely, the intubation attempt was considered successful if one or both lungs were filled with air. An unsuccessful intubation attempt is considered a failure of three or more intubation attempts by an experienced user, or the failure of the patient to maintain an airway when a permanent airway is required immediately.

    Two years

Secondary Outcomes (1)

  • The effectiveness of using a 3D printed videolaryngoscope during endotracheal intubation training.

    Two years

Study Arms (1)

Evaluation of device performances in normal and difficult airway management

OTHER

Each endotracheal intubation (ETI) attempt could enhance the participant's experience in the next attempt. Hence, the order of use of ETI devices was randomized to avoid experience-based bias. Six subgroups were needed to determine the order in which the SMSS would use the devices based on a permutation of three because three ETI devices were planned to be used in total. Accordingly, participants were randomized into six groups using the Random Team Generator. Six experiment stations were set up. Normal airway manikins (NAMs) were used in the first three stations, and difficult airway manikins (DAMs) were used in the subsequent three. The interventions were to be conducted by the participants using NAMs first, followed by DAMs in the predetermined randomization order. Participants were assisted by an experienced assistant researcher in ETI during their attempts to extend the ETT, who also check the intubation accuracy with a bag valve mask (BVM) at the end of the intervention.

Device: AirAngel® 3D printed videolaryngoscope

Interventions

This is a mannequin study that aims to compare a videolaryngoscope produced with 3D printing with a Storz videolaryngoscope and a Macintosh direct laryngoscope in the hands of inexperienced users in terms of ease of use, glottic imaging and intubation success.

Also known as: Storz® videolaryngoscope and, Macintosh® laryngoscope
Evaluation of device performances in normal and difficult airway management

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Being senior medical students Not having received endotracheal intubation training

You may not qualify if:

  • Refusal to participate in the study

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Acibadem University

Istanbul, 34752, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (6)

  • Pieters BMA, Maas EHA, Knape JTA, van Zundert AAJ. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2017 Dec;72(12):1532-1541. doi: 10.1111/anae.14057. Epub 2017 Sep 22.

    PMID: 28940354BACKGROUND
  • Maruyama K, Yamada T, Kawakami R, Hara K. Randomized cross-over comparison of cervical-spine motion with the AirWay Scope or Macintosh laryngoscope with in-line stabilization: a video-fluoroscopic study. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Oct;101(4):563-7. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen207. Epub 2008 Jul 25.

    PMID: 18660500BACKGROUND
  • Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Feb;114(2):181-3. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu266. Epub 2014 Aug 23. No abstract available.

    PMID: 25150988BACKGROUND
  • Lambert CT, John SC, John AV. Development and performance testing of the low-cost, 3D-printed, smartphone-compatible 'Tansen Videolaryngoscope' vs. Pentax-AWS videolaryngoscope vs. direct Macintosh laryngoscope: A manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Nov;37(11):992-998. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001264.

    PMID: 32675700BACKGROUND
  • Cook TM, Kelly FE. A national survey of videolaryngoscopy in the United Kingdom. Br J Anaesth. 2017 Apr 1;118(4):593-600. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex052.

    PMID: 28403414BACKGROUND
  • Coles-Black J, Chao I, Chuen J. Three-dimensional printing in medicine. Med J Aust. 2017 Aug 7;207(3):102-103. doi: 10.5694/mja16.01073. No abstract available.

    PMID: 28764624BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Financial Stress

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Stress, PsychologicalBehavioral SymptomsBehavior

Study Officials

  • Kamil Kayayurt, Ass Prof

    Acibadem University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
NA
Masking
NONE
Purpose
OTHER
Intervention Model
SINGLE GROUP
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

October 10, 2023

First Posted

October 19, 2023

Study Start

November 1, 2020

Primary Completion

January 31, 2022

Study Completion

February 28, 2022

Last Updated

October 19, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-10

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations