Differences in two new rigid indirect laryngoscopes

Anaesthesia

Volumn 63, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1385-1386

  Beckmann, L A ^a   Edwards, M J ^a   Greenland, K B ^a  

^a ROYAL BRISBANE AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; LARYNGOSCOPE; LARYNGOSCOPY; LETTER; TECHNIQUE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL; LARYNGOSCOPES; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 58149229686     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05777.x     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Henderson JJ, Suzuki A. Rigid indirect laryngoscope insertion techniques. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 323-4.
2. Sasano N, Yamauchi H, Fujita Y. Failure of the Airway Scope to reach the larynx. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2007; 54: 774-5.
3. Hirabayashi Y. Airway Scope versus Macintosh laryngoscope: a manikin study. Emergency Medicine Journal 2007; 24: 357-8.
4. Woollard M, Lighton D, Mannion W, et al. Airtraq vs standard laryngoscopy by student paramedics and experienced prehospital laryngoscopists managing a model of difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 26-31.
5. Maharaj CH, Costello JF, Higgins BD, Harte H, Laffey JG. Learning and performance of tracheal intubation by novice personnel: a comparison of the Airtraq® and Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2006; 61: 671-7.