Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 7;14(7):e26637. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26637

Table 5. Quantitative data from facial overlay survey.

QUALITATIVE DATA
Question Number Comments
2 - mouth too close together, hard to pull lips back (S1) - mouth did not line up, silicone thick (S8)
  - unable to open airway effectively (S2) - manikin mouth is small already, the silicone on top makes it sticker to pass tube (S9)
  - lips were easy to separate, however, it was difficult to insert an LMA (S3) - mouth stiff (S11)
  - only able to insert oral airway (S5) - lips little too low, maybe thinner silicone (S12)
  - oral cavity very rigid (S6) - it was tough to use the LMA - mouth too small, tongue in way (S13)
  - the mouth opening is narrow (S7) - mouth opening has to be bigger width and open wider, it was harder to manipulate (S14)
  - just the size of the lips was bigger, it was hard to put LMA (S15) - the mask (LMA) was too large in comparison to the overlays mouth (S17)
  - overlay was a little stiff to open mouth (S16) - lips were stiff, mouth a bit narrow (S18)
12 - more flexibility to open airway (S2)
  - cut closer to the shape of eyes, include facial hair, portrays real life scenarios, nice to see different overlays being utilized in practice! (S3)
  - nasal holes for nasal prongs (S4)
  - please make an opening on the nose so O2 can be administered (S7)
  - get the companies to make manikins more diverse to begin with - with your expertise (S9)
  - maybe the overlay could be thinner, not so bulky (S11)
  - consider thinner silicone to be more flexible for intubation (S12)
  - bigger mouth, overlay adhesive so they stay on better (S13)
  - would love manikins in other ethnicities (S15)
  - excellent idea and clearly important (S18)