PloS one · 2020
Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Godai Kohei, Moriyama Takahiro, Kanmura Yuichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Managing difficult pediatric airway is challenging. The MultiViewScope (MVS) Stylet Scope is reported to be useful in difficult pediatric airway. In this randomized crossover study, we compared the effectiveness of the MVS Stylet Scope to a standard direct laryngoscope with Miller #1 blade in simulated normal and difficult airways.
METHODS: Fifteen expert anesthesiologists and Fifteen anesthesiology residents participated in the study. Participants were asked to perform intubation with the Airsim Baby manikin first, and then with the Airsim Pierre Robin manikin. Participants in each group used the intubation devices in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the time of successful intubation. The secondary outcomes were the force exerted on the incisors during intubation, Cormack-Lehane scale, the difficulty of intubation.
RESULTS: There were no differences between MVS Stylet Scope and Direct laryngoscope in the time of successful intubation by the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved the force exerted on the incisors during intubation in the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved Cormack-Lehane scale, and the difficulty of intubation with difficult pediatric airway situation in both expert anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents.
CONCLUSIONS: Although less forces on the incisors and improved view of glottis were observed with the MVS Stylet Scope, MVS Stylet Scope did not shorten the time of intubation. The results of this study mean that the MVS Stylet Scope may be a less invasive airway devise than the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade in the pediatric airway management. For the next step, we need to evaluate the MVS Stylet Scope in the real patients as an observational study.
METHODS: Fifteen expert anesthesiologists and Fifteen anesthesiology residents participated in the study. Participants were asked to perform intubation with the Airsim Baby manikin first, and then with the Airsim Pierre Robin manikin. Participants in each group used the intubation devices in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the time of successful intubation. The secondary outcomes were the force exerted on the incisors during intubation, Cormack-Lehane scale, the difficulty of intubation.
RESULTS: There were no differences between MVS Stylet Scope and Direct laryngoscope in the time of successful intubation by the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved the force exerted on the incisors during intubation in the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved Cormack-Lehane scale, and the difficulty of intubation with difficult pediatric airway situation in both expert anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents.
CONCLUSIONS: Although less forces on the incisors and improved view of glottis were observed with the MVS Stylet Scope, MVS Stylet Scope did not shorten the time of intubation. The results of this study mean that the MVS Stylet Scope may be a less invasive airway devise than the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade in the pediatric airway management. For the next step, we need to evaluate the MVS Stylet Scope in the real patients as an observational study.