Success Rates with Digital Intubation: Comparing Unassisted, Stylet, and Gum-Elastic Bougie Techniques

The utility of digital intubation, especially in an austere environment with limited equipment, has been previously described. However, evidence supporting best practices for its technique is limited. We seek to quantify the time to intubation and the rate of successful placement of the tube for digital intubation using different approaches and assistance devices.

Using a manikin, digital intubation was performed with an endotracheal tube alone, with an endotracheal tube and a 14-French stylet, or with a gum-elastic bougie. All 3 techniques were performed in a crossover fashion at the manikin's side and head. Three trials per technique and position were performed. Outcomes measured were the time to intubation and the successful placement of the tube.

A total of 72 timed trials were performed. A significant difference did not exist between practitioners being positioned at the head vs side in terms of time or successful placement rate. There was no difference between the time to intubation in the tube-only and stylet-assisted groups, but the bougie-assisted group was significantly slower than the others. The stylet-assisted technique was significantly more successful than the other 2 techniques.

In a manikin model, stylet-assisted digital intubation was the most successful technique tested and allowed intubation to be accomplished just as quickly as with an endotracheal tube alone. Bougie-assisted digital intubation was slower and may not be as helpful as when it is used as an adjunct with direct laryngoscopy. Further research is needed to determine the utility of these adjuncts on live subjects.