Endotracheal IntubationAR-AMBULANCENCT07865663
Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Versus Video Laryngoscopy During Ambulance Transport
A study testing Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy in people with Endotracheal Intubation, run by ONUR KARAKAYALI at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This randomized crossover simulation study evaluated the performance of augmented reality (AR) smart glasses compared with conventional video laryngoscopy (VL) for endotracheal intubation under simulated prehospital ambulance conditions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Endotracheal Intubation
- What is being tested?
- Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 10 Sep 2026to 25 Sep 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Prehospital emergency care professionals working as paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
- At least 2 years of professional experience in prehospital emergency medical services.
- Aged 18 years or older.
- Voluntary participation in the study and provision of informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Declining to participate or withdrawing consent.
- Inability to complete all four randomized study conditions.
- Incomplete study measurements or data preventing evaluation of the predefined outcomes.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Kocaeli Provincial Ambulance Service
İzmit, Kocaeli, 41000
About this study
Official title: The Advantage of Augmented Reality Over Video Laryngoscopy Is Context-Dependent: A Randomized Crossover Trial in Simulated Prehospital Ambulance Transport
This randomized crossover simulation study evaluated the performance of augmented reality (AR) smart glasses compared with conventional video laryngoscopy (VL) for endotracheal intubation under simulated prehospital ambulance conditions. Prehospital emergency care professionals performed endotracheal intubation using both AR and VL in a stationary ambulance and in a moving ambulance. The moving ambulance scenario was conducted on a standardized 1-km training track at a constant speed of 20 km/h and included four speed bumps and four 90-degree turns. Each participant completed all four study conditions in a randomized sequence. The study primarily evaluated intubation performance, including total intubation time, and additionally assessed procedural performance, success, glottic visualization, and participant-reported workload and usability.
Read the detailed description
This prospective randomized 2 × 2 crossover simulation study included prehospital emergency care professionals with at least two years of field experience. Each participant performed endotracheal intubation under four experimental conditions: video laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, video laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. The order of the study conditions was randomized.
All procedures were performed using an adult airway management trainer. In the augmented reality condition, the laryngoscopic image was displayed within the participant's line of sight using AR smart glasses. Additional functions such as remote guidance or annotation were not used, allowing assessment of the effect of direct visualization through the head-mounted display.
Moving ambulance scenarios were performed on a standardized 1-km ambulance training track at a constant speed of 20 km/h. The route included four speed bumps and four 90-degree turns, and the ambulance remained in motion until the intubation attempt was completed. Stationary scenarios were conducted using the same ambulance environment while the vehicle remained parked.
Outcomes included total intubation time, time to glottic visualization, tube passage time, first-pass success, number of attempts, esophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottic opening (POGO), perceived difficulty, workload assessed using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), ease of use, satisfaction, device preference, and safety or technical issues.
- Conditions
- Endotracheal Intubation
- Being tested
- Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy, Video Laryngoscopy
- Keywords
- Augmented Reality, Video Laryngoscopy, Endotracheal Intubation, Prehospital Emergency Care, Moving Ambulance, Smart Glasses, Airway Management, Simulation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Augmented Reality-Assisted LaryngoscopyDevice
Endotracheal intubation was performed using an augmented reality (AR) smart-glasses system that displayed the laryngoscopic video image within the participant's field of view. The system enabled participants to visualize the airway while maintaining a forward-facing head position. The intervention was evaluated under both stationary and moving ambulance conditions using an adult airway management trainer. Remote guidance and annotation functions were not used during the study.
Video LaryngoscopyDevice
Endotracheal intubation was performed using a video laryngoscope (VL), with the airway image visualized on the device's external display. The intervention was evaluated under both stationary and moving ambulance conditions using an adult airway management trainer. Participants performed the intubation according to the randomized crossover sequence assigned to them.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Sequence A: VL-Moving → AR-Moving → VL-Stationary → AR-Stationary | Experimental | Participants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. Receives: Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy; Device: Video Laryngoscopy |
| Sequence B:Moving-AR → Moving-VL → Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL | Experimental | Participants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. Receives: Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy; Device: Video Laryngoscopy |
| Sequence C: Stationary-VL → Stationary-AR → Moving-VL → Moving-AR | Experimental | Participants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, and Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance. Receives: Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy; Device: Video Laryngoscopy |
| Sequence D:Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL → Moving-AR → Moving-VL | Experimental | Participants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, and Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance. Receives: Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy; Device: Video Laryngoscopy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Total Intubation Time
Time from insertion of the laryngoscope into the mouth until confirmation of successful endotracheal tube placement. Total intubation time was measured in seconds for each study condition.
Measured: During each of the four study conditions (periprocedural)
Secondary outcomes (1)
Time to Glottic Visualization
Time from insertion of the laryngoscope into the mouth until adequate visualization of the glottis. The outcome was measured in seconds for each of the four study conditions.
Measured: During each of the four study conditions (periprocedural)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Oct 2026
- Study start10 Sep 2026
- Primary completion20 Sep 2026
- Study completion25 Sep 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Endotracheal IntubationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- Participants completed all four experimental conditions in a randomized crossover design: video laryngoscopy (VL) and augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy (AR) under both moving and stationary ambulance conditions. The order of the four conditions was randomized to minimize potential sequence and learning effects.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- ONUR KARAKAYALI
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, ONUR KARAKAYALI, Sakarya University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865663
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SAU-ARINT-2026-01
- Acronym
- AR-AMBULANCE
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 29 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data will not be shared because data sharing was not included in the original study protocol or informed consent process.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Advantage of Augmented Reality Over Video Laryngoscopy Is Context-Dependent: A Randomized Crossover Trial in Simulated Prehospital Ambulance Transport
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865663
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AR-AMBULANCE / SAU-ARINT-2026-01
- Conditions
- Endotracheal Intubation
- Keywords
- Augmented Reality, Video Laryngoscopy, Endotracheal Intubation, Prehospital Emergency Care, Moving Ambulance, Smart Glasses, Airway Management, Simulation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- ONUR KARAKAYALIUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Sep 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized crossover simulation study evaluated the performance of augmented reality (AR) smart glasses compared with conventional video laryngoscopy (VL) for endotracheal intubation under simulated prehospital ambulance conditions. Prehospital emergency care professionals performed endotracheal intubation using both AR and VL in a stationary ambulance and in a moving ambulance. The moving ambulance scenario was conducted on a standardized 1-km training track at a constant speed of 20 km/h and included four speed bumps and four 90-degree turns. Each participant completed all four study conditions in a randomized sequence. The study primarily evaluated intubation performance, including total intubation time, and additionally assessed procedural performance, success, glottic visualization, and participant-reported workload and usability.
Detailed description
This prospective randomized 2 × 2 crossover simulation study included prehospital emergency care professionals with at least two years of field experience. Each participant performed endotracheal intubation under four experimental conditions: video laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, video laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. The order of the study conditions was randomized.
All procedures were performed using an adult airway management trainer. In the augmented reality condition, the laryngoscopic image was displayed within the participant's line of sight using AR smart glasses. Additional functions such as remote guidance or annotation were not used, allowing assessment of the effect of direct visualization through the head-mounted display.
Moving ambulance scenarios were performed on a standardized 1-km ambulance training track at a constant speed of 20 km/h. The route included four speed bumps and four 90-degree turns, and the ambulance remained in motion until the intubation attempt was completed. Stationary scenarios were conducted using the same ambulance environment while the vehicle remained parked.
Outcomes included total intubation time, time to glottic visualization, tube passage time, first-pass success, number of attempts, esophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottic opening (POGO), perceived difficulty, workload assessed using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), ease of use, satisfaction, device preference, and safety or technical issues.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- Participants completed all four experimental conditions in a randomized crossover design: video laryngoscopy (VL) and augmented reality-assisted laryngoscopy (AR) under both moving and stationary ambulance conditions. The order of the four conditions was randomized to minimize potential sequence and learning effects.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Sequence A: VL-Moving → AR-Moving → VL-Stationary → AR-Stationary | Experimental | Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy, Device: Video LaryngoscopyParticipants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. |
| Sequence B:Moving-AR → Moving-VL → Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL | Experimental | Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy, Device: Video LaryngoscopyParticipants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, and Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance. |
| Sequence C: Stationary-VL → Stationary-AR → Moving-VL → Moving-AR | Experimental | Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy, Device: Video LaryngoscopyParticipants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, and Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance. |
| Sequence D:Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL → Moving-AR → Moving-VL | Experimental | Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy, Device: Video LaryngoscopyParticipants assigned to this sequence performed endotracheal intubation under all four study conditions in the following order: Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Video Laryngoscopy in a stationary ambulance, Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance, and Video Laryngoscopy in a moving ambulance. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Prehospital emergency care professionals working as paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
- At least 2 years of professional experience in prehospital emergency medical services.
- Aged 18 years or older.
- Voluntary participation in the study and provision of informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Declining to participate or withdrawing consent.
- Inability to complete all four randomized study conditions.
- Incomplete study measurements or data preventing evaluation of the predefined outcomes.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Augmented Reality-Assisted LaryngoscopyEndotracheal intubation was performed using an augmented reality (AR) smart-glasses system that displayed the laryngoscopic video image within the participant's field of view. The system enabled participants to visualize the airway while maintaining a forward-facing head position. The intervention was evaluated under both stationary and moving ambulance conditions using an adult airway management trainer. Remote guidance and annotation functions were not used during the study. | Device | Sequence A: VL-Moving → AR-Moving → VL-Stationary → AR-Stationary, Sequence B:Moving-AR → Moving-VL → Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL, Sequence C: Stationary-VL → Stationary-AR → Moving-VL → Moving-AR, Sequence D:Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL → Moving-AR → Moving-VL |
| Video LaryngoscopyEndotracheal intubation was performed using a video laryngoscope (VL), with the airway image visualized on the device's external display. The intervention was evaluated under both stationary and moving ambulance conditions using an adult airway management trainer. Participants performed the intubation according to the randomized crossover sequence assigned to them. | Device | Sequence A: VL-Moving → AR-Moving → VL-Stationary → AR-Stationary, Sequence B:Moving-AR → Moving-VL → Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL, Sequence C: Stationary-VL → Stationary-AR → Moving-VL → Moving-AR, Sequence D:Stationary-AR → Stationary-VL → Moving-AR → Moving-VL |
Primary outcome
Total Intubation Time
Time frame: During each of the four study conditions (periprocedural)
Time from insertion of the laryngoscope into the mouth until confirmation of successful endotracheal tube placement. Total intubation time was measured in seconds for each study condition.
1 secondary outcome
Time to Glottic Visualization
Time frame: During each of the four study conditions (periprocedural)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data will not be shared because data sharing was not included in the original study protocol or informed consent process.
Related trials for Endotracheal Intubation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
AI-assisted Tracheal Intubation in Children
Intubation
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Recruiting
Development and Preliminary Validation of Intelligent Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Use
Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Educational Intervention on Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Intubation, Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Recruiting
Hyperangulated vs Standard Videolaryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation
Endobronchial Intubation, Double Lumen Tube Intubation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Augmented Reality-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy in people with Endotracheal Intubation, run by ONUR KARAKAYALI at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Total Intubation Time (time frame: During each of the four study conditions (periprocedural)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Oct 2026.