The Tokai journal of experimental and clinical medicine · 2018
Airtraq DL and AWS-200 for Double-lumen Endotracheal Tube Intubation: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
Ajimi Junko, Nishiyama Junichi, Masuda Ritsuko, Shibata Takeo, Suzuki Toshiyasu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized study aimed to assess the usefulness of two videolaryngoscopes with a side channel, the Airtraq DLTM and the AWS-200TM, for intubation with a double-lumen tube (DLT).
METHODS: In 60 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 1-3 who were not expected to have difficult airway, the Airtraq DLTM and the AWS-200TM were randomly used for DLT intubation. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included exposure time, the glottis view with the Macintosh and study videolaryngoscopes, the number of attempts before successful intubation, the intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score, and the subjectively rated ease of blade insertion and DLT advancement.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics. In all patients, DLT intubation was successful at the first attempt. Intubation time was significantly shorter in the Airtraq DLTM group (17.2±0.9 seconds, range = 9.6-29.4 seconds) than in the AWS-200TM group (21.6±1.1 seconds, range = 13.1-33.9 seconds) (P = 0.005). No significant differences were observed in any other outcomes.
CONCLUSION: In patients who were not expected to have difficult airway, DLT intubation with the Airtraq DLTM required significantly less time than with the AWS-200TM.
METHODS: In 60 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 1-3 who were not expected to have difficult airway, the Airtraq DLTM and the AWS-200TM were randomly used for DLT intubation. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included exposure time, the glottis view with the Macintosh and study videolaryngoscopes, the number of attempts before successful intubation, the intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score, and the subjectively rated ease of blade insertion and DLT advancement.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics. In all patients, DLT intubation was successful at the first attempt. Intubation time was significantly shorter in the Airtraq DLTM group (17.2±0.9 seconds, range = 9.6-29.4 seconds) than in the AWS-200TM group (21.6±1.1 seconds, range = 13.1-33.9 seconds) (P = 0.005). No significant differences were observed in any other outcomes.
CONCLUSION: In patients who were not expected to have difficult airway, DLT intubation with the Airtraq DLTM required significantly less time than with the AWS-200TM.