{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017844396859386154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014275517487508922, 'mean_word_length': 5.431192660550459, '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}}
[Glidescope performance in tracheal intubation by novice laryngoscopists: a manikin study].

BACKGROUND
The Glidescope is a novel video laryngoscope designed for difficult airway management. It is expected to be a useful device for inexperienced users but published data have been limited. Using a manikin, we compared the performance of the Glidescope with those of the Airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope in tracheal intubation by inexperienced and experienced operators.


METHODS
Seventeen nurses and 17 anesthesiologists were included for the present study. The intubation time, success rate, the pressure exerted on the upper teeth during intubation, visibility of the vocal cord, the most favorable device, and operability of each device (VAS) were recorded.


RESULTS
In the inexperienced group, there was no significant difference in the intubation time among the three devices. Visibility and operability of Glidescope and Airwayscope were better than those of Macintosh laryngoscope in the inexperienced group. The pressure on the upper teeth by Glidescope was higher than that by Macintosh laryngoscope, though most inexperienced operators did not feel apprehensive about teeth injury.


CONCLUSIONS
The Glidescope was a useful device for the inexperienced operators. However, instructors should notice that inexperienced laryngoscopists tend to push the upper teeth by the Glidescope.