Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway versus Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation in the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Environment

14Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: Intubation is a difficult skill under normal circumstances and more so with a limited visual field such as wearing a protective mask in a chemical or biological incident. This study sought to determine whether successful intubation using the intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) under protective mask conditions was equivalent to standard endotracheal intubation. Methods: A pilot study was conducted using emergency medicine personnel. Participant's attempted intubation of a manikin while wearing a standard U.S. Army M-40 protective mask. Two attempts were performed with each method. Results: One hundred percent of the ILMA placements were successful with only 78% success with endotracheal intubation (p = 0.1). Time to successful intubation and ventilation was significantly less for the ILMA versus endotracheal intubation (p = 0.005). Conclusion: This study suggests that under simulated chemical and biological conditions using an M-40 protective mask, intubation is accomplished faster and with more success with the ILMA.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Talbot, T. S., Cuenca, P. J., & Wedmore, I. S. (2003). Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway versus Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation in the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Environment. Military Medicine, 168(11), 876–879. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/168.11.876

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free