Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology · 2023
Comparative evaluation of C-MAC and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopes with Macintosh direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abhyankar Prachi, Sabharwal Nikki, Gupta Anju, Das Akshaya K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Videolaryngoscopes have an undisputed role in difficult airway management, but their role in routine intubation scenarios remains underappreciated. McGrath MAC is a lightweight laryngoscope with a disposable blade. It remains to be proven if it performs as efficiently as the reusable videolaryngoscopes like C-MAC and whether it has an advantage over standard Macintosh laryngoscope in predicted normal airways.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We recruited 180 adult patients and randomly divided them into three groups for intubation with either Macintosh laryngoscope (Group-A), C-MAC (Group-B), and McGrath (Group-C). The primary objective was to compare the first attempt success rate. Secondary objectives included Cormack-Lehane (CL) grades, laryngoscopy time, intubation time, ease of intubation, need for optimization manoeuver, and the number of passes to place the endotracheal tube.
RESULTS: The two videolaryngoscopes provided a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (P = 0.027). The CL grade-I was 100% in group B, 41.7% in group-A and 90% in group-C (B vs C; P = 0.037). Laryngoscopy time was 9.9 ± 2.5 s, 12.6 ± 0.8 s, and 13.1 ± 0.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (B vs C; P = 0.001). Intubation time was 24.4 ± 12 s, 28.3 ± 1.9 s, and 37.3 ± 5.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P < 0.0001). The number of tube passes was highest in group C.
CONCLUSION: Videolaryngoscopes provided a superior glottic view and resulted in a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. When comparing the two videolaryngoscopes, C-MAC resulted in better intubation characteristics (shorter intubation time, better glottic views, and higher first-attempt success rates) and should be preferred over McGrath for intubation in adult patients with normal airways.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We recruited 180 adult patients and randomly divided them into three groups for intubation with either Macintosh laryngoscope (Group-A), C-MAC (Group-B), and McGrath (Group-C). The primary objective was to compare the first attempt success rate. Secondary objectives included Cormack-Lehane (CL) grades, laryngoscopy time, intubation time, ease of intubation, need for optimization manoeuver, and the number of passes to place the endotracheal tube.
RESULTS: The two videolaryngoscopes provided a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (P = 0.027). The CL grade-I was 100% in group B, 41.7% in group-A and 90% in group-C (B vs C; P = 0.037). Laryngoscopy time was 9.9 ± 2.5 s, 12.6 ± 0.8 s, and 13.1 ± 0.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (B vs C; P = 0.001). Intubation time was 24.4 ± 12 s, 28.3 ± 1.9 s, and 37.3 ± 5.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P < 0.0001). The number of tube passes was highest in group C.
CONCLUSION: Videolaryngoscopes provided a superior glottic view and resulted in a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. When comparing the two videolaryngoscopes, C-MAC resulted in better intubation characteristics (shorter intubation time, better glottic views, and higher first-attempt success rates) and should be preferred over McGrath for intubation in adult patients with normal airways.