Observational trial assesses intubation success and times with a novel, low-cost laryngoscope, indicating feasibility in LMICs.
In the United States and other resource-rich settings, video laryngoscopy is often favored for emergency intubation over direct laryngoscopy due to ease of use and improved performance in difficult airways. Video laryngoscopes pose a significant cost barrier against adoption in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we designed and tested a low-cost, 3D printable, periscope-based laryngoscope that achieves an indirect view of the vocal cords without the use of a video camera. The absence of expensive video components allows this device to be manufactured for $4.41 USD, making it well-suited for resource-limited settings. The periscope-based laryngoscope was manufactured from polylactic acid (PLA) filament using a 3D printer. Manikin testing of the laryngoscope was performed by providers ranging from medical students to experienced physicians using the high fidelity Laerdal SimMan®. The novel laryngoscope was compared to commonly available direct and video laryngoscopes, and intubation times and first-pass success rates were recorded. A total of 121 trials were performed. In experienced intubators, faster intubation times were seen in the direct and periscope-based laryngoscopes compared to video laryngoscopes. Mean intubation times for experienced intubators were as follows: Direct Laryngoscope = 17.45 s, Video Laryngoscope = 23.34 s, and Novel Periscope-based Laryngoscope = 11.31 s, with statistical significance (p < 0.001) found between the Video and Periscope-based laryngoscope times. 100% of trials resulted in successful intubation of the trachea. The periscope-based laryngoscope yielded intubation times and first-pass success rates that compare favorably to direct and video laryngoscopes, and it can be readily manufactured in multiple environments at a low price point without proprietary industrial technology. Next steps include human clinical trials and regulatory approvals prior to clinical adoption of the novel device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmitt et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: