Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2020
Tracheal intubation using the Airtraq video laryngoscope vs. Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with anticipated difficult intubation.
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.
Gupta Nipun, Singh Shalendra, Shouche Sachin, Mishra Satish Kumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Various types of laryngoscopes have been invented to ameliorate the laryngoscopic view of the glottis, in normal and difficult airway, which helps anaesthesiologists to secure the airway during anaesthesia. In this prospective study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of the Airtraq video laryngoscope (AVL) and the Macintosh curved-blade laryngoscope (MBL), by using a common clinical assessment tool in patients with modified Mallampati class III and IV.
METHODS: A total of 60 patients [group A (AVL) and group M (MBL)] with modified Mallampati class III and IV listed for general anaesthesia were included. Each patient was intubated with either of the laryngoscope based on the group allotted. Time taken for tracheal intubation, grade of visualisation of glottis and need for manoeuvres to optimise the glottic view were compared.
RESULTS: The degree of the glottic view during successful intubation attempt was easily appreciated in group A (p < 0.0001). Difference in the requirement of manoeuvres for optimising the laryngeal view/assisting in intubation as assessed by manoeuvre score was easily appreciated in group A (p < 0.010). Rise in heart rate and mean arterial pressure 1 and 2 min after intubation was more in group M than in group A (p < 0.0001). No event of any airway trauma, as evidenced by visible trauma to lips or oral mucosa or blood on laryngoscope, was observed with either of the laryngoscope.
CONCLUSION: The novel AVL provides better intubation conditions with greater ease of intubation, better glottic view and lesser haemodynamic alterations during laryngoscopy than MBL.
METHODS: A total of 60 patients [group A (AVL) and group M (MBL)] with modified Mallampati class III and IV listed for general anaesthesia were included. Each patient was intubated with either of the laryngoscope based on the group allotted. Time taken for tracheal intubation, grade of visualisation of glottis and need for manoeuvres to optimise the glottic view were compared.
RESULTS: The degree of the glottic view during successful intubation attempt was easily appreciated in group A (p < 0.0001). Difference in the requirement of manoeuvres for optimising the laryngeal view/assisting in intubation as assessed by manoeuvre score was easily appreciated in group A (p < 0.010). Rise in heart rate and mean arterial pressure 1 and 2 min after intubation was more in group M than in group A (p < 0.0001). No event of any airway trauma, as evidenced by visible trauma to lips or oral mucosa or blood on laryngoscope, was observed with either of the laryngoscope.
CONCLUSION: The novel AVL provides better intubation conditions with greater ease of intubation, better glottic view and lesser haemodynamic alterations during laryngoscopy than MBL.