{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03899268887083672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021121039805036556, 'mean_word_length': 4.811320754716981, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the Airway Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope with in-line cervical stabilization by the semisolid neck collar: manikin study.

BACKGROUND
The usefulness of Airway Scope (AWS) and Macintosh direct laryngoscope (ML) for patients with trauma requiring intubation with in-line cervical stabilization for protection of the cervical spine was compared.


METHODS
Thirty-three residents performed orotracheal intubation using ML and AWS in an intubation model with in-line cervical stabilization. The tracheal intubation success rate, time required for tracheal intubation, and number of trials of inserting the tracheal tube into the trachea were measured in individual residents.


RESULTS
Two residents inserted the tube into the esophagus using ML (success rate: 93.9%), but all residents succeeded in tracheal intubation using AWS (success rate: 100%) (p = 0.492). The time required for intubation was similar using AWS and ML (15 seconds vs. 20 seconds, p = 0.261). The number of trials using AWS was significantly lower (2.0 times vs. 1.0 times, p = 0.001).


CONCLUSION
The usefulness of AWS may be comparable with or greater than that of ML for oral intubation in trauma patients with in-line cervical stabilization.