CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bolis, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by LeDez, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bolis, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by LeDez, K.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 48:A5 (2001)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2001


Abstracts - Monday June 11 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

WARNING SYSTEM TO DETECT CONTACT WITH UPPER TEETH DURING LARYNGOSCOPY

Rafik S. Bolis, M.B., B.Ch. and Kenneth LeDez, FRCPC

Department of Anesthesia, Health Science Centre, St. John's, NF A1B 3V6

INTRODUCTION

Damage to the teeth is the most common complication during laryngoscopy(1) with an incidence of 0.02% to 0.7%(2).

METHODS

A size 3 Macintosh Laryngoscope blade was modified to incorporate a Force Sensing Resistor (FSR), connected by a wire to an integrated circuit that could activate a buzzer and two light-emitting diodes (LED). "Slight" pressure resulted in slow beeping and a yellow flashing light (warning signal) and greater pressure faster beeping and a red flashing light (crisis signal). Ten intubations were performed on a training manikin by each of 21 Respiratory Therapy students and staff (RT) with a size 7 styletted endotracheal tube. The buzzer was switched on in random order for half the trials without the RT's knowledge. The signals (buzzer / light) per intubation were recorded, with success confirmed by inflating the lungs. Data were analyzed using Chi-Square.

RESULTS

199 of 210 trials were successful (mean time 12 sec.) with a contact signal(s) in 36.1%. Persistent pressure was significantly more frequent with the buzzer off (p<0.000).Go


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
 
DISCUSSION

The modified laryngoscope appeared to successfully detect contact with the upper teeth. Repeated contact occurred in 73.1% and 59.9% with the buzzer off and on respectively with these inexperienced personnel, but this did not reach significance at the 5% level. Persistent pressure occurred only once with the buzzer on, significantly less than when the buzzer was off. The system showed promise for future use in clinical trials.

REFERENCES

1 Anesthesia Intensive Care 2000; 28: 133-145.

2 Endo Dent Traumatol 1999; 15: 33–36.





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bolis, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by LeDez, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bolis, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by LeDez, K.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS