A radiographic comparison of human airway anatomy and airway manikins--Implications for manikin-based testing of artificial airways.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this prospective, single-center, observational study was to investigate the accuracy of modeling and reproduction of human anatomical dimensions in manikins by comparing radiographic upper airway measurements of 13 different models with humans. METHODS 13 commonly used airway manikins (male or female anatomy based) and 47 controls (adult humans, 37 male, 10 female) were investigated using a mediosagittal and axial cervical spine CT scan. For anatomical comparison six human upper airway target structures, the following were measured: Oblique diameter of the tongue through the center, horizontal distance between the center point of the tongue and the posterior pharyngeal wall, horizontal distance between the vallecula and the posterior pharyngeal wall, distance of the upper oesophageal orifice length of epiglottis distance at the narrowest part of the trachea. Furthermore, the cross-section of the trachea in axial view and the cross-section of the upper oesophageal orifice in the same section was calculated. All measurements were compared gender specific, if the gender was non-specified with the whole sample. RESULTS None of the included 13 different airway manikins matched anatomy in human controls (n = 47) in all of the six measurements. The Laerdal Airway Management Trainer, however, replicated human airway anatomy at least satisfactorily. CONCLUSION This investigation showed that all of the examined manikins did not replicate human anatomy. Manikins should therefore be selected cautiously, depending on the type of airway securing procedure. Their widespread use as a replacement for in vivo trials in the field of airway management needs to be reconsidered.

[1]  S. Russo,et al.  [Simulation and airway management]. , 2005, Der Anaesthesist.

[2]  G. Bayley,et al.  Evaluation of four manikins as simulators for teaching airway management procedures specified in the Difficult Airway Society guidelines, and other advanced airway skills * , 2007, Anaesthesia.

[3]  Helmut Ringl,et al.  A comparison of paediatric airway anatomy with the SimBaby high-fidelity patient simulator. , 2011, Resuscitation.

[4]  R Maassen,et al.  Correspondence: Comparison of the C‐MAC® videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh, Glidescope® and Airtraq® laryngoscopes in easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenarios in manikins , 2010, Anaesthesia.

[5]  B. Harte,et al.  Learning and performance of tracheal intubation by novice personnel: a comparison of the Airtraq® and Macintosh laryngoscope , 2006, Anaesthesia.

[6]  R. McCarthy,et al.  Acquisition of Critical Intraoperative Event Management Skills in Novice Anesthesiology Residents by Using High-fidelity Simulation-based Training , 2010, Anesthesiology.

[7]  T M Cook,et al.  Evaluation of four airway training manikins as patient simulators for the insertion of eight types of supraglottic airway devices * , 2007, Anaesthesia.

[8]  S. Russo,et al.  Simulation und Atemwegsmanagement , 2005, Der Anaesthesist.

[9]  A. Timmermann.  Supraglottic airways in difficult airway management: successes, failures, use and misuse , 2011, Anaesthesia.

[10]  T. Cook,et al.  LMA SupremeTM insertion by novices in manikins and patients , 2010, Anaesthesia.

[11]  S. Russo,et al.  Laryngoscopic versus intubating LMA guided tracheal intubation by novice users--a manikin study. , 2007, Resuscitation.

[12]  T. Cook,et al.  Complications and failure of airway management. , 2012, British journal of anaesthesia.

[13]  J. Laffey,et al.  Tracheal intubation by inexperienced medical residents using the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes--a manikin study. , 2006, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[14]  J. Laffey,et al.  Comparison of the Glidescope® and Pentax AWS® laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by Advanced Paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation , 2009, BMC emergency medicine.

[15]  R. G. Fraser,et al.  Dimensions of the normal human trachea. , 1984, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  T. Cook,et al.  Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. , 2011, British journal of anaesthesia.

[17]  J. Laffey,et al.  Evaluation of intubation using the Airtraq® or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthetists in easy and simulated difficult laryngoscopy – a manikin study * , 2006, Anaesthesia.

[18]  T. Cook,et al.  Evaluation of airway equipment: man or manikin? , 2011, Anaesthesia.

[19]  B. Scheller,et al.  Disposable laryngeal tube suction: standard insertion technique versus two modified insertion techniques for patients with a simulated difficult airway. , 2011, Resuscitation.

[20]  R. Hesselfeldt,et al.  Evaluation of the airway of the SimMan™ full‐scale patient simulator , 2005, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[21]  J. McFetrich.  A structured literature review on the use of high fidelity patient simulators for teaching in emergency medicine , 2006, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[22]  D. Sessler,et al.  Prediction of optimal endotracheal tube cuff volume from tracheal diameter and from patient height and age: a prospective cohort trial , 2012, Journal of Anesthesia.