Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale · 2020
Why USB-endoscope laryngoscopy is as effective as video laryngoscopy.
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.
Findik Meliha, Kayipmaz Afsin E, Kavalci Cemil, Sencelikel Tugce Sencelikel, Muratoglu Murat, Akcebe Aysegul, Gungorer Bulent, Kavalci Gulsum
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study.
METHODS: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared.
RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.
METHODS: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared.
RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.