Supraglottic devices are helpful for inexperienced providers who perform ventilation in emergency situations. Most supraglottic devices do not allow secondary tracheal intubation through the device. The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D®) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that offer supraglottic ventilation and secondary tracheal intubation. We evaluated the novel iLTS-D and compared it to the established Fastrach using a manikin-based study. Participants used both devices in a randomised order. The participants conducted four consecutive trials on a manikin. One trial was composed of the following procedures. First, participants ventilated the manikin using either iLTS-D or Fastrach. ‘Time to ventilation’, success rates and number of attempts were recorded for the supraglottic device. Second, participants intubated the manikin through the previously inserted supraglottic device. ‘Time to tracheal ventilation’, success rate and tube localisation were recorded. The primary endpoint was the results of the final fourth trial, which mirrored the standardised training of trials 1, 2 and 3. A total of 64 participants were enrolled. All of the participants successfully inserted both devices on their first attempt in trial 4. Fastrach was applied 1 s faster in trial 4 than the iLTS-D (median ‘time to ventilation’ Fastrach: 13.5 s., iLTS-D: 14.5 s., p = 0.04). All participants successfully intubated through both devices in trial 4. There was no difference in ‘time to tracheal ventilation’ by tracheal intubation between either device (median ‘time to tracheal ventilation’: Fastrach: 14.0 s., iLTS-D: 14.0 s., p = 0.16). The iLTS-D performed similarly to the ILMA in insertion and intubation times in a manikin setting.

In infants, securing the airway is time-critical because of anatomical and physiological differences related to airway management in children less than 1 year old. The aim of this study was to compare the time to ventilation using two different hyperangulated video laryngoscope blades with the time to ventilation via conventional direct laryngoscopy in a normal airway [NA] and in a simulated difficult airway [DA]. This study was a comparative, bicentric, open-label, randomized controlled evaluation. An infant high-fidelity simulator (SimBaby™; Laerdal® Medical, Stavanger, Norway) was used, and two scenarios were proposed, as follows: NA and DA evoked with tongue edema and cervical collar. After theoretical and practical briefing, each participant compared in the two airway scenarios the novel King Vision™ Pediatric aBlade (KV) (Ambu® A/S, Bad Nauheim, Germany) video laryngoscope and the C-MAC™ D-blade Ped (DB) (Karl Storz® SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) video laryngoscope to conventional laryngoscopy using the Miller Blade (MiB) and the Macintosh Blade (MaB) in a random sequence. Eighty physicians (65 AN and 15 PCCM staff) were included. In the NA scenario, the median [IQR] time to successful time to ventilation (TTV) was significantly shorter for the KV at 13 s [12–15 s] than for the MaB at 14.5 s [13–16 s], DB at 14.5 s [13–16] and MiB at 16 s [14–19] (p < 0.001). In DA, the KV also shortened TTV to 14 s [13–16], whereas TTV was 23 s with the MaB [20–26], 19 s with the DB [16–21], and 27 s with the MiB [22–31] (p < 0.001). There were no differences in first-pass intubation success rates (FPAs) between hyperangulated blades and direct laryngoscopes in NA. In DA, the hyperangulated blades enabled 92 (DB) to 100% (KV) FPAs compared with 65 (MiB) to 76% (MaB) for conventional laryngoscopy (p < 0.001). Video laryngoscopes with hyperangulated blades were associated with shorter TTV in normal and difficult infant airway situations. The higher FPAs of hyperangulated blades in DA may avoid desaturations and decrease adverse events in pediatric airway management.

Background: The effectiveness of instructional videos as a stand-alone tool for the acquisition of practical skills is yet unknown because instructional videos are usually didactically embedded. Therefore, we evaluated the acquisition of the skill of a humeral intraosseous access via video in comparison to that of a self-study with an additional retention test. Methods: After ethical approval, we conducted two consecutive studies. Both were designed as randomised controlled two-armed trials with last-year medical students as independent samples at our institutional simulation centre of a tertiary university hospital centre. In Study 1, we randomly assigned 78 participants to two groups: Vid-Self participants watched an instructional video as an intervention, followed by a test, and after seven days did a self-study as a control, followed by a test. Self-Vid ran through the trial in reverse order. In Study 2, we investigated the influence of the sequence of the two teaching methods on learning success in a new sample of 60 participants: Vid-Self watched an instructional video and directly afterward did the self-study followed by a test, whereas Self-Vid ran through that trial in reverse order. In Studies 1 and 2, the primary outcome was the score (worst score = 0, best score = 20) of the test after intervention and control. The secondary outcome in Study 1 was the change in score after seven days. Results: Study 1: The Vid-Self (Participants n = 42) was superior to the Self-Vid (n = 36) (mean score 14.8 vs. 7.7, p < 0.001). After seven days, Self-vid outperformed Vid-Self (mean score 15.9 vs. 12.5, p < 0.001). Study 2: The Vid-Self (n = 30) and Self-Vid (n = 30) scores did not significantly differ (mean 16.5 vs. mean 16.5, p = 0.97). Conclusion: An instructional video as a stand-alone tool effectively promotes the acquisition of practical skills. The best results are yielded by a combination of an instructional video and self-study right after each other, irrespective of sequence. Trial registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05066204 (13/04/2021) (Study 1) and NCT04842357 (04/10/2021) (Study 2).

Recent case reports have indicated significant cuff overinflation when using the standard filling volume based on the manufacturer’s recommendations in older models of laryngeal tubes. The aim of this study was to determine the minimum cuff pressure needed to perform standardized ventilation without leakage in the new, revised model of the laryngeal tube “LTS-D”. After ethical approval, LTS-D was placed for ventilation in 60 anesthetized patients. The cuff was inflated to the recommended volume (#3: 60 ml, #4: 80 ml, and #5: 90 ml). After evaluation of the initial cuff pressure (CP), the CP was lowered in 10 cmH2O steps until a minimal cuff pressure of 30 cmH2O was achieved. The absence of an audible leak was required for a step-by-step reduction in the CP. Evacuated cuff volume, success rate, and airway injuries were documented. Data were expressed as medians (interquartile ranges [IQRs]). The comparison of CPs and cuff volumes was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. After initial inflation, the CP ranged from 105 cmH2O [90–120; #5] to 120 cmH2O [110–120; #3]. Lowering the CP to 60 cmH2O resulted in a reduced cuff volume ranging from 47 ml [44–54; #3] to 77 ml [75–82; #5] compared to the initial inflation (p < 0.001). Leakage occurred more frequently when the CP was lowered to 40 cmH2O compared to the initial inflation (44/54 [81%]; p < 0.01). Using a CP between 50 cmH2O and 60 cmH2O, a leakage rate of 3/54 (5%) was observed, compared to a rate of 11/54 (21%) when using a CP lower than 50 cmH2O. The overall success rate was 90%, and airway injury occurred in 7% of patients (4/60). We found significant overinflation of the revised LTS-D using the recommended volume for initial cuff inflation. A CP of 60 cmH2O was found to be sufficient for ventilation in the majority of patients evaluated. Checking and adjusting the CP in laryngeal tubes is mandatory to avoid overinflation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02300337 . Registered: 20 November 2014.

Background: The intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study. Methods: After ethical approval, we randomised 126 medical students into two groups. Each participant received either Fastrach or ILTS-D2 to perform five consecutive ventilation attempts in a manikin. The primary endpoint was the time to ventilation in the last attempt of using the devices as extraglottic devices. Secondary endpoints were the time to tracheal intubation and the success rates. Results: There was no relevant difference between the two devices in the time to ventilation in the last of five attempts (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 12–15]; ILTS-D2: median 13 s [IQR: 12–15], p = 0.592). Secondary endpoints showed a 2 s faster blind tracheal intubation using the Fastrach than using the ILTS-D2 (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 13–17]; ILTS-D2: median 16 s [IQR: 15–20] p < 0.001). For both devices, the success rates were 100% in the last attempt. Conclusions: Concerning extraglottic airway management, we could not detect a relevant difference between the revised ILTS-D2 and the Fastrach under laboratory conditions. We advocate for an evaluation of the ILTS-D2 in randomised controlled clinical trials. Trial registration: Identifier at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03542747. May 31, 2018