Man and Manikin
Man and Manikin
New anaesthetic equipment and it’s pathway to introduction has been a topic of discussion over the past few years and this is a conversation in which we have participated. The ADEPT recommendations were noted to reflect the processes through which the Tulip airway had been developed, tested and researched ultimately producing level 1 evidence with a randomized controlled trial being submitted to Anaesthesia in December 2014 for consideration.
The discussion included the role of manikins in initial research, with some suggesting that they were of little value and that research should only involve Humans. This was not our finding, with a close correlation being shown between the two types of study. Previously, it was suggested that there was no record of a study being done in manikins and also in Humans, so to that end we do so now.Roblox HackBigo Live Beans HackYUGIOH DUEL LINKS HACKPokemon Duel HackRoblox HackPixel Gun 3d HackGrowtopia HackClash Royale Hackmy cafe recipes stories hackMobile Legends HackMobile Strike Hack
In 2012 a randomized manikin study researching the Tulip airway and the Guedel/facemask in the hands of BLS trained inexperienced users gathered from hospital staff was conducted, with a follow on randomized controlled cross over Human study concluding in 2014. The results of both studies, when compared, suggest that not only are manikin studies of value, they are an essential step in the research and development of new airway devices such as the Tulip airway.
All results of the two studies are similar suggesting a close correlation between man and manikin, and that manikins if anything are harder to ventilate than Humans. The results are remarkably identical.
Both studies showed that the Tulip increased ventilation when compared to a Guedel/facemask, by 9% (p<0.0423) in the manikin study but by 77% (p<0.001) in the Human version with both results being statistically significant.
In both studies 100% of users were able to ventilate with a Tulip with the manikin study showing p<0.00026 and the Human study demonstrating p<0.001. Again, in both studies an identical number of Guedel users failed with 20% of failing in the manikin study (p<0.00026) and also 20% failing in the Human study but with a p<0.001.
In the manikin study 77% of users preferred the Tulip with a near identical 78% of users preferring the Tulip in the Human study.
We can only conclude that manikin studies are effective in the evaluation of new airway devices such as the Tulip airway and should be taken seriously for the development of preemptive data, but again we state that the results will only be as good as the simulation. Manikins, in our experience, enable gross study and the evaluation of extreme parameters, such as ventilation pressure, with safety and ease preventing potential harm to patients in whom such evaluations may be detrimental if not unethical.
It isn’t man or manikin, it’s both. One safe step at a time.
Dr. Amer Shaikh
Trackback from your site.