Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation · 2004
[Single-use laryngoscope blade assessment].
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Fourneret-Vivier A, Rousseau A, Shum J, Frenea S, Fargnoli J M, Mallaret M R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of switching disposable laryngoscope blades and to compare the disposable blades available on the market to reusable blades within the context of a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
STUDY DESIGN: Comparative prospective study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Study conducted on patients intubated for surgical procedures in all operating theatres of a university hospital. The anaesthetic practitioner filled in an assessment form giving a score on nine criteria for each blade used. Data were recorded on Epi Info software. Satisfaction scores of each criterion were compared for both disposable blades and reusable blades.
RESULTS: Six brands of blades were tested with 225 blades. Disposable blades were evaluated as inferior to the reusable blades in 62% of cases. Two blades were reported as more satisfactory: the 670166 Rusch-Pilling and Vital View blades.
CONCLUSION: The disposable blades were not easily accepted by the anaesthetists particularly for difficult intubations, which is why reusable blades should not be totally removed from practice. Single-use blades proposed by different manufacturers are not identical. We chose 670166 Rusch-Pilling blades, the best adapted to our institution. The switch to disposable blades would require that blade manufacturers improve the quality of the blades.
STUDY DESIGN: Comparative prospective study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Study conducted on patients intubated for surgical procedures in all operating theatres of a university hospital. The anaesthetic practitioner filled in an assessment form giving a score on nine criteria for each blade used. Data were recorded on Epi Info software. Satisfaction scores of each criterion were compared for both disposable blades and reusable blades.
RESULTS: Six brands of blades were tested with 225 blades. Disposable blades were evaluated as inferior to the reusable blades in 62% of cases. Two blades were reported as more satisfactory: the 670166 Rusch-Pilling and Vital View blades.
CONCLUSION: The disposable blades were not easily accepted by the anaesthetists particularly for difficult intubations, which is why reusable blades should not be totally removed from practice. Single-use blades proposed by different manufacturers are not identical. We chose 670166 Rusch-Pilling blades, the best adapted to our institution. The switch to disposable blades would require that blade manufacturers improve the quality of the blades.