A comparison of the transillumination-assisted technique versus midline approach technique in novices: a prospective randomized controlled trial about the Bonfils intubation fiberscope.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy for novices to conduct intubation with the Bonfils intubation fiberscope (BIF) using the transillumination-assisted or midline approach technique in patients with normal airways.

METHODS: In this prospective randomized control study, 10 trainees were assigned to the transillumination-assisted technique group (T group) or the midline approach technique group (R group). Each trainee was required to conduct intubation in 50 patients. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were success rate (%), number of attempts, and complications.

RESULTS: Among the cases of successful intubation, the intubation time was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The overall success rate of intubation was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The intubation success rates at the first, second, and third attempts as well as the average intubation times were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05), but in patients receiving successful intubation at the second attempt, the intubation time was longer in the T group (P = 0.0006). The incidences of dry throat, sore throat, and hoarseness were higher in the T group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a normal airway, the transillumination-assisted technique was unlikely to increase the success rate of intubation with the BIF compared with the midline approach technique, but led to more complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR-INR-16009967 , retrospectively registered on November 22, 2016.