Comparison of Cmac vs Vivasight devices in terms of time and effectiveness of intubation among medical students

: While analysing the use of the new videolaryngoscopes in the hands of the well experienced anaesthesiologists it is difficult to get answers to all intriguing questions and gain insights that might arise only from the untrained users. We can form a thesis that if a manikin, with the use of a particular device, is intubated quickly and effectively by the novices, it is probable that the more experienced operators will be even more satisfied with its use. AIM: The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of these devices in the hands of the users untrained in intubation. We also wanted to find out what are the subjective perceptions of using the devices by unsuccessful users. We investigated intubation times, effectiveness as well as parameters such as tooth damage. The aim of the secondary and obvious benefit to students was familiarity Them with new advanced methods of clearing the upper respiratory tract with which they will probably meet in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 104 medical students. Every participant took three attempts to intubate the manikin using each device. The technical parameters of the devices have been studied by the experts from the Lodz University of Technology. RESULTS: The average time of intubation in the case of the Cmac was 28,3±10,1, while as regards the Vivasight the average time of intubation was 30,9±9,0. In order to check the statistical significance, the Mann - Whitney U test was used (p <0,005). A larger proportion of successful attempts that amounted to 60% were observed while using the CMAC. CONCLUSIONS: According to the subjective opinion of the students, the Cmac is easier to operate than the Vivasight. This study proved that videolaryngocopes can be a great tool for training new methods of intubation even during studies.