Remote Hands-on Training versus On-site Hands-on Training for Flexible Optical Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial
Primary result · GRS scoreResult — go to the resultMean difference 2.14 95% CI −0.79 - 5.08Authors' conclusion
Remote FOI hands-on training using shippable models was as effective as on-site training, with similar performance, checklist scores, success rate, and intubation time.
Study context
- Population
- Trainees with fewer than 5 flexible optical intubation (FOI) experiences, performing FOI on anesthetized patients with normal airway anatomy within 1 week after training28 analysed
- Participants
- 30 participants
- Comparison
- Remote vs on-site hands-on training for flexible optical intubation
- Remoten = 15
- On-siten = 15reference
- Primary endpoint
- Global rating scale (GRS) score of FOI performance on the patient
Methodological detailsnoninferiority, July 2022 to December 2022
- Noninferiority
- July 2022 to December 2022
Primary result
GRS score
Mean difference
2.14
95% CI −0.79 - 5.08
P = 0.146
By group
Remote
14.2
± 3.95
On-site
12.0
± 3.60
Remote vs On-site
mean difference 2.14 (95% CI −0.79 - 5.08); P = 0.146
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
Intubation time
P = 0.780
Total success rate
| Outcome | Remote | On-site | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Checklist score | mean 9.32 ± 0.78 | mean 8.89 ± 1.08 | P = 0.238 |
Self-assessment and training satisfaction scores
- No significant difference between remote and on-site groups
Original publication
Remote Hands-on Training versus On-site Hands-on Training for Flexible Optical Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. Published 31 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →