↓ Skip to main content

Bougies as an aid for endotracheal intubation with the Airway Scope: bench and manikin comparison studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bougies as an aid for endotracheal intubation with the Airway Scope: bench and manikin comparison studies
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0424-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ichiro Takenaka, Kazuyoshi Aoyama, Tamao Iwagaki, Yukari Takenaka

Abstract

When encountering a difficult airway with an Airway Scope (AWS) a bougie can be inserted into the endotracheal tube in the AWS channel. The angulated tip of the bougie can be guided toward the glottis by rotating it. We tested the ease of rotating bougies (Venn reusable, Boussignac, Portex single-use, and Frova) in an endotracheal tube when placed in the AWS channel. Bench study: Seven anesthesiologists inserted each of the four types of bougies into a 7.0 mm endotracheal tube in an AWS channel and rotated the bougie end (side of bougie operated by hand) clockwise or counterclockwise to an angle of 0°-180° in 45° increments. The rotation angle of the bougie tip (tracheal side) was measured for each bougie and the degree of force required to rotate them was examined. Manikin study: Using the same four bougies, the same seven anesthesiologists attempted to intubate a manikin that simulated a difficult airway. Success rate and time required for successful intubation were compared between the four bougies. Bench study: The difference in the rotation angle between the bougie tip and end was significantly larger with Portex single-use and Frova bougies than with Venn reusable and Boussignac bougies (P < 0.01). The rotation angles of the tips of Venn reusable, Boussignac, Portex single-use, and Frova bougies were 145°/123° (clockwise / counterclockwise), 92°/108°, 46°/56°, and 39°/51°, respectively, when their ends were rotated to an angle of 180°. Venn reusable and Boussignac bougies could be rotated in the endotracheal tube by clinically acceptable rotational force. Manikin study: Times to intubation with Venn reusable [25 (SD, 5) s] and Boussignac bougies [35 (6) s] were significantly shorter than with Portex single-use [61 (17) s] and Frova bougies [69 (22) s] (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in success rate between the four bougies. Venn reusable and Boussignac bougies are a useful aid for intubation with an AWS. Portex single-use and Frova bougies seem to be less suitable for this technique. Different bougies may be of varying utility when used with an AWS or airway device with an endotracheal tube channel.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 19%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,570,909
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#441
of 1,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,989
of 322,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#17
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.