DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jai.v0i0.70666

A COMPARISON OF ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION SUCCESS USING VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPY AND RECONSTRUCTED LARYNGOSCOPE AMONG HEALTH WORKERS IN NUSA PENIDA

Departemen Anestesiologi dan Terapi Intensif FK Udayana, Jl. PB Sudirman, Kampus Sudirman Denpasar, Indonesia

Received: 28 Jan 2025; Revised: 27 Oct 2025; Accepted: 27 Oct 2025; Available online: 28 Oct 2025.
Open Access Copyright 2021 JAI (Jurnal Anestesiologi Indonesia)
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Cover Image
Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation is a critical procedure in the management of patients with respiratory distress. The two main methods used are video laryngoscopy and reconstructive laryngoscopy. This study aims to compare the duration and number of intubation attempts using video laryngoscopy and reconstructed laryngoscopy in health workers in Nusa Penida.

Objective : This study aimed to compare the time and number of endotracheal intubations performed by healthcare workers in Nusa Penida using two strategies, video laryngoscopy and repeat laryngoscopy. The study involved healthcare specialists who performed intubations in the model, with two groups of 31 people each.

Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental design involving health workers in Nusa Penida who performed endotracheal intubation using video laryngoscope and reconstructed laryngoscope on mannequins. Two groups of 31 samples were created for the study, and both were given intubation training using laryngoscope video and recorded laryngoscopy.

Results: The outcomes of this study were the duration of intubation and the number of attempts required by each respondent to successfully intubate after training. The study used statistical analysis to compare outcomes, employing a paired t-test. The results indicated that the average duration of intubation using laryngoscopy was 31.7 seconds (range: 13 - 93 seconds), while video laryngoscopy took 22.9 seconds (range: 11-49 seconds), with a significance level of P < 0.014. Additionally, the average number of intubation trials was 1.29 (range: 1 - 3) for recorded laryngoscopy and 1.03 (range: 1 - 2) for video laryngoscopy, with a significance level of P < 0.018.

Conclusion:  There is a difference in the use of video laryngoscope better in terms of duration and intubation attempts.

Keywords: endotracheal intubation; intubation time; number of intubation attempt; reconstructed laryngoscopy; video laryngoscopy

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext |  Research Instrument
Untitled
Subject
Type Research Instrument
  Download (485KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Copyright Transfer Agreement
Subject
Type Other
  Download (597KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
A Comparison Of Endotracheal Intubation Success Using Video Laryngoscopy And Reconstructed Laryngoscope Among Health Workers In Nusa Penida
Subject
Type Other
  Download (82KB)    Indexing metadata

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Original Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
The Effect of Midazolam Sedation on Agitation Incidence in Post-Operative Patients Who Are Intubated in the ICU of Adam Malik General Hospital Medan Effect of Coloading Ringer Lactate on Blood Pressure Stability in Patients with Spinal Anesthesia Comparison Between the Use of 10% Lidocaine Spray on the Mole Palate, Posterior Pharynx, Tonsillar Pillar, Hypopharynx, and Endotracheal Tube on Hemodynamics and Post-Intubation Throat Pain Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block as Pain Management for Postoperative Femur Fracture in the Elderly: A Case Report Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery: A Case Report of Acute Chest Pain and Elevated Troponin Levels, Challenges and Management Strategies Early Seizure Management in Postoperative Brain Tumor Patients More recent articles
Most cited articles
Midazolam Intravena Dosis Rendah Tidak Mempengaruhi Nitric Oxide Intraperitoneal Mencit Balb/C Yang Terpapar Lipopolisakarida Patofisiologi Penyakit Jantung Koroner More cited articles
  1. Liu Y, He Y, Wang X, Li J, Zhang Z, Zhuang X. Advances in airway management in recent 10 years from 2013 to 2023. Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science. 2023 Oct 4;1(4)
  2. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative Effectiveness of the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope versus Direct Laryngoscopy in the Setting of the Predicted Difficult Airway. 2012 May
  3. Agro FE, Cataldo R, Mattei A. New devices and techniques for airway management. 2009. Minerva Anestesiol. Vol. 75 - No. 3
  4. Sakles JC, Chiu S, Mosier J, Walker C, Stolz U. The importance of first pass success when performing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2013 Jan;20(1):71–8
  5. Russotto V, Myatra SN, Laffey JG, et al. Intubation Practices and Adverse Peri-intubation Events in Critically Ill Patients From 29 Countries. JAMA. 2021;325(12):1164–1172
  6. Cabrini L, Landoni G, Baiardo Radaelli M, Saleh O, Votta CD, Fominskiy E, et al. Tracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A comprehensive systematic review of randomized trials. Crit Care. 2018 Jan 20;22(1)
  7. Bowles TM, Freshwater-Turner DA, Janssen DJ, Peden CJ. Out-of-theatre tracheal intubation: Prospective multicentre study of clinical practice and adverse events. Vol. 107, British Journal of Anaesthesia. Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 687–92
  8. Griesdale DEG, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. Glidescope ® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2012 Jan;59(1):41–52
  9. Baek MS, Han MJ, Huh JW, Lim CM, Koh Y, Hong SB. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for first-attempt tracheal intubation in the general ward. Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Dec 1;8(1)
  10. Jiang J, Ma D, Li B, Yue Y, Xue F. Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2017 Nov 24;21(1)
  11. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Klungkung. Data Kepariwisataan Klungkung 2018
  12. Arulkumaran N, Lowe J, Ions R, Mendoza M, Bennett V, Dunser MW. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 120, British Journal of Anaesthesia. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 712–24
  13. Baek MS, Han MJ, Huh JW, Lim CM, Koh Y, Hong SB. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for first-attempt tracheal intubation in the general ward. Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Dec 1;8(1)
  14. Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Tracheal intubation by non-anaesthetist physicians using the Airway Scope. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2007 Aug;24(8):572–3
  15. Arulkumaran, N., Lowe, J., Ions, R., Mendoza, M., Bennett, V., & Dunser, M. W. (2018). "Videolaryngoscopy versus direk laryngoscopy for the tracheal intubation of adults in the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis." British Journal of Anaesthesia, 120(4), 712-724
  16. Moon, S., MyongJa, H., Jin, W., Chae, L., Younsuck., and Sang‐Bum Hong. (2018). Video laryngoscopy versus direk laryngoscopy for first-attempt tracheal intubation in the general ward. Ann. Intensive Care (2018) 8:83
  17. Reyhan, N., Goksu, E., Kaplan, A., Senfer, A., & Sevil, H. (2017). Comparison of C-MAC, McGrath and Macintosh laringoskop use in a standardized airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by novice intubators. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 35(9), 1368–1370

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-10-31 00:03:43

No citation recorded.