Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology · 2021
Comparative evaluation of glidescope videolaryngosocope and conventional macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oropharyngeal cancer surgeries: A prospective randomized study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kumar Abhishek, Gupta Nishkarsh, Kumar Vinod, Bharti Sachidanand Jee, Garg Rakesh, Kumar Rajeev, Bhatnagar Sushma
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nasotracheal intubation in oropharyngeal cancer patients is challenging owing to anatomical alterations. Various videolaryngoscopes have been compared to conventional laryngoscope and also amongst each other in different clinical scenarios; the supremacy of videolaryngoscopes over conventional laryngoscope in oropharyngeal cancer patients is yet to be established. We compared the efficacy of glidescope videolaryngoscopes and Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients posted for routine oropharyngeal cancer.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 120 ASA I and II oropharyngeal cancer patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomized to undergo nasotracheal intubation after induction of general anesthesia with glide scope video laryngoscope (Group GVL, N = 60) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group L, N = 60) as per group allocation. Time to glottic view, total intubation time (primary objective), hemodynamic fluctuations, and additional manoeuvres to aid intubation were recorded.
RESULTS: Time to visualize the glottic opening (9.20 ± 4.6 sec vs 14.8 ± 6.3 sec) (P = 0.000) and the total intubation time was significantly less in group GVL (35.6 ± 9.57 sec vs 42.2 ± 11 sec) (P = 0.001). Glidescope videolaryngosocpe provided better glottic views and resulted in significantly fewer manoeuvres to facilitate NTI (P = 0.009). The median numeric rating scale (NRS), hemodynamic parameters and complications were similar in both the groups.
CONCLUSION: Glidescope videolaryngosocpe is better than conventional Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation times and need of manoeuvres to facilitate intubation and should be a preferred device for NTI in patients with oropharyngeal cancer.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 120 ASA I and II oropharyngeal cancer patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomized to undergo nasotracheal intubation after induction of general anesthesia with glide scope video laryngoscope (Group GVL, N = 60) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group L, N = 60) as per group allocation. Time to glottic view, total intubation time (primary objective), hemodynamic fluctuations, and additional manoeuvres to aid intubation were recorded.
RESULTS: Time to visualize the glottic opening (9.20 ± 4.6 sec vs 14.8 ± 6.3 sec) (P = 0.000) and the total intubation time was significantly less in group GVL (35.6 ± 9.57 sec vs 42.2 ± 11 sec) (P = 0.001). Glidescope videolaryngosocpe provided better glottic views and resulted in significantly fewer manoeuvres to facilitate NTI (P = 0.009). The median numeric rating scale (NRS), hemodynamic parameters and complications were similar in both the groups.
CONCLUSION: Glidescope videolaryngosocpe is better than conventional Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation times and need of manoeuvres to facilitate intubation and should be a preferred device for NTI in patients with oropharyngeal cancer.