Video Laryngoscopy

DrankTheKoolaid

DrankTheKoolaid

Forum Deputy Chief
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Just curious how many 911 providers are utilizing video laryngoscopy in their systems. Not looking at flight or CCT, just solely 911.

If you are which device are you using?
 
We have the King Vision, no personal experience with it myself, reviews from others are mixed.
 
I've used the king once on a patient. It was interesting. It worked. Played with glyde scope and a few others. King is my favorite.
 
As I was leaving Sussex County, they were transitioning all of their medic units to the king vision. Used it in training several times, I liked it. I also used the Pentax, glide scope and intubrite. The intubrite was my favorite.
 
We use the Pentax. It's alright; I've been successful on the few times I've used it. My personal favorite was the McGrath we trialed.
 
We didn't buy the Pentax because their VL stuff had been bought by Ambu/King, the technology hadn't been updated in years and we figured any benefits in the Pentax would eventually be rolled into a King product. I really liked the Pentax cross hairs. It was pretty foolproof.

At the end of the day, we went with KingVision based on price point.
 
As DE said, we're using the KingVision. I don't love it, but I am getting better with it as I practice. I really, really like the C-MAC portable monitor. I've used that in hospital a couple times and played with it a lot on mannekins. Unfortunately I think they managed to price their way out of most budgets...
 
We have trialled the airtraq device that plugs into a tablet. Reasonably priced too. Meanwhile several of our paramedics are actively against adding any sort of video laryngoscopy because "we had a 100% intubation rate last year." I think they are missing the point.
 
We just started to use the VividTrac. It seems like a nice piece of equipment during training. I've had not used it yet on a pt.
 
Tigger said:
We have trialled the airtraq device that plugs into a tablet. Reasonably priced too. Meanwhile several of our paramedics are actively against adding any sort of video laryngoscopy because "we had a 100% intubation rate last year." I think they are missing the point.
Click to expand...
I would like the airtraq a whole lot more if it wasn't so flimsy. I felt like the blad kept bending.
 
We are waiting for new protocols to come out, and when they do we will be using the vivid track as our primary adjunct. Ive used it a couple times on cadavers and its worked fairly well. Any one have field experience with the vivid track?
 
We have Glidescope AVL's on all of our trucks. Our critical care trucks and helicopters use McGrath. I like the GlideScope personally. I used it two shifts ago and I appreciated the fact that I didn't have to get into the prone position to drop my tube. We also have it in our protocols that we have to use it for every RSI performed and has to be recorded. Good for case studies.
 
DEmedic said:
"I've never been a car accident. Why should I have to have air bags?"
Click to expand...
Exactly. "Well what if it breaks and no one is good at DL anymore?" Is also a poor excuse.

It was the vividtrac and not the airtraq we looked at, my AMR place carries the airtraq "periscope."
 
Tigger said:
Exactly. "Well what if it breaks and no one is good at DL anymore?" Is also a poor excuse.

It was the vividtrac and not the airtraq we looked at, my AMR place carries the airtraq "periscope."
Click to expand...
Here we use video larnygoscopy as a difficult airway adjunct, not as the primary go to.
 
cprted said:
Here we use video larnygoscopy as a difficult airway adjunct, not as the primary go to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if they're different skills how do you get used to the "difficult airway" technique so it works in those situations you really need it to? I think you have to put the majority of your training and resources into training with your primary method. I know I've needed what feels like a lot of live attempts to even begin to improve with the VL technique. Obviously proficiency has to be maintained with your secondary method (DL in our case), but I don't know if I see the utility in only using the new skill and equipment that's supposed to make it easier on your uncommon difficult intubations. We still have the option to use DL in our first attempt if there's a reason, but otherwise are encouraged to use VL in the vast majority of our intubations.
 
I've been using the King for about 6 months now and have had good luck with it apart from one incident where an 8.0 tube got stuck in the channel. This happened to a few of our medics but the problem was traced to a specific brand of ET tube.
 
King vision, used it twice today. Once to practice with the tool (still newer to us) and the other was a tube I don't thinkno would get with DL (small mouth opening, Obese and poor neck mobility.)

The hardest part is getting the blade into the mouth. Even works well with soiled airways and less tissue displacement = less sedation needed and less trauma on insertion (so you are more comfortable with it as a first attempt without damaging your airway tissues)
 
chaz90 said:
As DE said, we're using the KingVision. I don't love it, but I am getting better with it as I practice. I really, really like the C-MAC portable monitor. I've used that in hospital a couple times and played with it a lot on mannekins. Unfortunately I think they managed to price their way out of most budgets...
Click to expand...
For the people who are using VL, have you made a complete transition, or is it a backup/option to use it instead of DL?

How much training and what kind did you get on them before the switch, and how often is it being used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top