Evaluation of standard endotracheal intubation, assisted laryngoscopy (airtraq), and laryngeal mask airway in the management of the helmeted athlete airway: A manikin study

Seth Burkey, Rebecca Jeanmonod, Preston Fedor, Christopher Stromski, Kevin N. Waninger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Physicians at sporting events must rarely manage the airway of a helmeted athlete. This poses challenges for providers who do not regularly engage in airway management. In a manikin model, our purpose was to determine (1) if standard endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a simulated helmeted athlete is adversely affected by bright-light conditions and (2) if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Airtraq improves airway management success. Design: This is a randomized, prospective, crossover study. Setting: The study was conducted at a 500-bed community-based hospital with residency training programs in family medicine and emergency medicine, as well as a fellowship in sports medicine. PARTICIPANTS:: We randomized 42 residents to manage the airway of a simulated helmeted athlete in c-spine immobilization using ETI, Airtraq, and LMA. Each method was attempted under bright light and in standard light. Main Outcome Measures: Our main outcomes were success or failure of airway and time to airway. Secondary outcome was perceived difficulty in airway management as a factor of environmental factors. Results: Airway success rates were 93% for ETI, 99% for LMA, and 75% for Airtraq. Standard ETI was significantly faster than intubation using the Airtraq (P = 0.0001) and had greater success (P = 0.004). Time to airway was faster with LMA than with standard ETI (P < 0.00001). There was no impact of bright light on ETI time (P = 0.61). Conclusions: These results suggest that both ETI and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of the airway in the helmeted athlete. Time to airway was significantly decreased with the use of LMA, regardless of the experience level of the intubator. Lighting conditions had no effect on success.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)301-306
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Journal of Sport Medicine
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Manikins
Laryngeal Masks
Laryngoscopy
Airway Management
Intratracheal Intubation
Athletes
Light
Sports Medicine
Emergency Medicine
Community Hospital
Internship and Residency
Lighting
Intubation
Immobilization
Cross-Over Studies
Spine
Medicine
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies
Physicians

Keywords

  • Airtraq
  • airway
  • football
  • helmeted athlete
  • intubation
  • LMA

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Evaluation of standard endotracheal intubation, assisted laryngoscopy (airtraq), and laryngeal mask airway in the management of the helmeted athlete airway : A manikin study. / Burkey, Seth; Jeanmonod, Rebecca; Fedor, Preston; Stromski, Christopher; Waninger, Kevin N.

In: Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 4, 07.2011, p. 301-306.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Burkey, Seth ; Jeanmonod, Rebecca ; Fedor, Preston ; Stromski, Christopher ; Waninger, Kevin N. / Evaluation of standard endotracheal intubation, assisted laryngoscopy (airtraq), and laryngeal mask airway in the management of the helmeted athlete airway : A manikin study. In: Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 301-306.
@article{bff63482de7f4f438574b79cd9b04654,
title = "Evaluation of standard endotracheal intubation, assisted laryngoscopy (airtraq), and laryngeal mask airway in the management of the helmeted athlete airway: A manikin study",
abstract = "Objectives: Physicians at sporting events must rarely manage the airway of a helmeted athlete. This poses challenges for providers who do not regularly engage in airway management. In a manikin model, our purpose was to determine (1) if standard endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a simulated helmeted athlete is adversely affected by bright-light conditions and (2) if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Airtraq improves airway management success. Design: This is a randomized, prospective, crossover study. Setting: The study was conducted at a 500-bed community-based hospital with residency training programs in family medicine and emergency medicine, as well as a fellowship in sports medicine. PARTICIPANTS:: We randomized 42 residents to manage the airway of a simulated helmeted athlete in c-spine immobilization using ETI, Airtraq, and LMA. Each method was attempted under bright light and in standard light. Main Outcome Measures: Our main outcomes were success or failure of airway and time to airway. Secondary outcome was perceived difficulty in airway management as a factor of environmental factors. Results: Airway success rates were 93{\%} for ETI, 99{\%} for LMA, and 75{\%} for Airtraq. Standard ETI was significantly faster than intubation using the Airtraq (P = 0.0001) and had greater success (P = 0.004). Time to airway was faster with LMA than with standard ETI (P < 0.00001). There was no impact of bright light on ETI time (P = 0.61). Conclusions: These results suggest that both ETI and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of the airway in the helmeted athlete. Time to airway was significantly decreased with the use of LMA, regardless of the experience level of the intubator. Lighting conditions had no effect on success.",
keywords = "Airtraq, airway, football, helmeted athlete, intubation, LMA",
author = "Seth Burkey and Rebecca Jeanmonod and Preston Fedor and Christopher Stromski and Waninger, {Kevin N.}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/JSM.0b013e31821d314c",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "301--306",
journal = "Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine",
issn = "1050-642X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of standard endotracheal intubation, assisted laryngoscopy (airtraq), and laryngeal mask airway in the management of the helmeted athlete airway

T2 - A manikin study

AU - Burkey, Seth

AU - Jeanmonod, Rebecca

AU - Fedor, Preston

AU - Stromski, Christopher

AU - Waninger, Kevin N.

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Objectives: Physicians at sporting events must rarely manage the airway of a helmeted athlete. This poses challenges for providers who do not regularly engage in airway management. In a manikin model, our purpose was to determine (1) if standard endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a simulated helmeted athlete is adversely affected by bright-light conditions and (2) if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Airtraq improves airway management success. Design: This is a randomized, prospective, crossover study. Setting: The study was conducted at a 500-bed community-based hospital with residency training programs in family medicine and emergency medicine, as well as a fellowship in sports medicine. PARTICIPANTS:: We randomized 42 residents to manage the airway of a simulated helmeted athlete in c-spine immobilization using ETI, Airtraq, and LMA. Each method was attempted under bright light and in standard light. Main Outcome Measures: Our main outcomes were success or failure of airway and time to airway. Secondary outcome was perceived difficulty in airway management as a factor of environmental factors. Results: Airway success rates were 93% for ETI, 99% for LMA, and 75% for Airtraq. Standard ETI was significantly faster than intubation using the Airtraq (P = 0.0001) and had greater success (P = 0.004). Time to airway was faster with LMA than with standard ETI (P < 0.00001). There was no impact of bright light on ETI time (P = 0.61). Conclusions: These results suggest that both ETI and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of the airway in the helmeted athlete. Time to airway was significantly decreased with the use of LMA, regardless of the experience level of the intubator. Lighting conditions had no effect on success.

AB - Objectives: Physicians at sporting events must rarely manage the airway of a helmeted athlete. This poses challenges for providers who do not regularly engage in airway management. In a manikin model, our purpose was to determine (1) if standard endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a simulated helmeted athlete is adversely affected by bright-light conditions and (2) if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Airtraq improves airway management success. Design: This is a randomized, prospective, crossover study. Setting: The study was conducted at a 500-bed community-based hospital with residency training programs in family medicine and emergency medicine, as well as a fellowship in sports medicine. PARTICIPANTS:: We randomized 42 residents to manage the airway of a simulated helmeted athlete in c-spine immobilization using ETI, Airtraq, and LMA. Each method was attempted under bright light and in standard light. Main Outcome Measures: Our main outcomes were success or failure of airway and time to airway. Secondary outcome was perceived difficulty in airway management as a factor of environmental factors. Results: Airway success rates were 93% for ETI, 99% for LMA, and 75% for Airtraq. Standard ETI was significantly faster than intubation using the Airtraq (P = 0.0001) and had greater success (P = 0.004). Time to airway was faster with LMA than with standard ETI (P < 0.00001). There was no impact of bright light on ETI time (P = 0.61). Conclusions: These results suggest that both ETI and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of the airway in the helmeted athlete. Time to airway was significantly decreased with the use of LMA, regardless of the experience level of the intubator. Lighting conditions had no effect on success.

KW - Airtraq

KW - airway

KW - football

KW - helmeted athlete

KW - intubation

KW - LMA

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960281849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960281849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31821d314c

DO - 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31821d314c

M3 - Article

C2 - 21617526

AN - SCOPUS:79960281849

VL - 21

SP - 301

EP - 306

JO - Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine

JF - Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine

SN - 1050-642X

IS - 4

ER -