loading page

Comparison of intra-oral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners’ work load assessments: a randomized crossover study
  • +5
  • Mikail ALKAN,
  • İsmail Aytaç,
  • Betül GÜVEN AYTAÇ,
  • Hidayet ÜNAL,
  • Bahattin GÜRSUL,
  • Semih Başkan,
  • Aysun POSTACI,
  • Nermin GÖĞÜŞ
Mikail ALKAN
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
İsmail Aytaç
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Betül GÜVEN AYTAÇ
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Hidayet ÜNAL
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Bahattin GÜRSUL
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Semih Başkan
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Aysun POSTACI
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Nermin GÖĞÜŞ
Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Aim: Providing effective ventilation of the unconscious patient is an essential skill in every specialty dealing with airway management. In this randomized cross-over study aimed to compare intra-oral and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success of patients, practitioners’ workload and anxiety assessments. Also we analyzed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation for both masks. Methods: 24 anesthesiology residents and 12 anesthesiologists participated in the study. Each of the practitioners ventilated 4 patients with both masks at settled pressure and frequency. Practitioners rated their workload and anxiety related to masks with National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index score and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scale. Ventilation success was evaluated with Han scale, expiratory tidal volume and leak volume. We analyzed potential risk factors of difficult mask ventilation with anthropometric characteristics and STOP-BANG score. Results: Ventilation success rate was superior with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask in terms of Han Scale (Easy mask ventilation percentage 84/144 (58.3%); 123/144 (85.4%); respectively) and tidal volume (481.92±173.99; 430.85±154.87mL; respectively). Leak volume in intraoral mask ventilation was significantly lower than classic face mask (71.50±91.17 /159.38±146.31 respectively). Diffucult mask ventilation risk factors were high weight, neck circumference, Mallampati score and STOP-BANG score>3 for classic face mask (at the utmost neck circumference 95% CI, OR=1.180, p= 0.002) Risk factors were high body mass index and Mallampati score for intraoral mask (at the utmost Body mass index 95% CI, OR=1.162 p=0.006). The anxiety ratings of practitioners were similar between two masks. The work-load rating is higher with intraoral mask comparing to classic face mask. Conclusion: Intraoral mask may be an effective alternative device for bag-valve mask ventilation.

Peer review status:UNDER REVIEW

05 Apr 2021Submitted to International Journal of Clinical Practice
07 Apr 2021Assigned to Editor
07 Apr 2021Submission Checks Completed
30 Apr 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned