Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2018
[Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Erdivanli Basar, Sen Ahmet, Batcik Sule, Koyuncu Tolga, Kazdal Hizir
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
METHODS: A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack–Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5–1.4 s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3–4.6 s, p < 0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8–4.4 s, p < 0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p < 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.
METHODS: A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack–Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5–1.4 s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3–4.6 s, p < 0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8–4.4 s, p < 0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p < 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.