20) (Figure ​(Figure33). A majority (95%; 19/20) of the study participants preferred the Boedeker fiberscope when asked which device they had a preference for (n = 20). Comments

by the participants were invited and collected and included the following: “Novel curve was easier to maneuver”; “Didn’t like curve of Bonfils”; “Bonfils harder to manipulate”. Discussion As previously established [5], our study confirms that both rigid fiberscopes provide good views of the difficult airway (as Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical reflected in the low CL airway view scores-median view score = 1 for each). It is interesting to note, however, that with the Boedeker fiberscope, there is a trend showing more observed airway scores with a low (or good) airway view score of 1 or 2 (95% or 20/21) than that seen with the Bonfils fiberscope (81% or 17/21). This difference is not statistically significant. (p = 0.34). Due to the widespread popularity of the Bonfils intubating fiberscope, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical it stands to reason that users would take few tries to achieve a successful Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical intubation.

The interesting point to notice from Table ​Table22 is the fact that the number of intubation attempts and the times to intubation were not statistically significantly selleckchem different for both fiberscopes, although the Bonfils fiberscope was inserted retromolar and the Boedeker fiberscope was inserted midline. The most dramatic difference between the two instruments was observed in the successful intubation rates (as shown in Figure ​Figure3).3). The data collected indicated that using the Boedeker fiberscope lead to a significantly higher intubation success rate (100%) than with the Bonfils fiberscope (68%) (p = 0.008). With respect to requests for cricoid pressure during the intubation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Navitoclax Sigma procedure, fewer requests (23%) were recorded when using the

Boedeker fiberscope compared to 45% with the Bonfils. This difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.20) most likely due to the small sample size, but this trend is Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical interesting. Two limitations to this study were the small sample size and the varied experience of the study participants in awake intubation. There was a very large standard deviation among the times to intubation. This is most likely due to the AV-951 varied experience of the operators. For the most part, since the scenarios were randomized to eliminate any learning effects, if the users were inexperienced, they were slow to intubate in both the scenarios, leading to a wide range of intubating times. It is interesting to note that the values in Table ​Table22 show that the lowest time to intubation was for the novel fiberscope. Another possible contributing factor to our large standard deviation would be the lack of training in using the rigid intubating fiberoptic devices. A majority of the participants (77%) had no experience with the Bonfils or the retro-molar technique.