Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2015
McGrath Video Laryngoscopy Facilitates Routine Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Comparison With Macintosh Laryngoscopy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Kwak Hyun-Jeong, Lee Seong-Yeon, Lee Sook-Young, Cho Sang-Hyun, Kim Hong-Soon, Kim Jong-Yeop
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The McGrath video laryngoscope (VL) offers excellent laryngoscopic views and increases the success rate of orotracheal intubation in patients with normal and difficult airways. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the McGrath VL with the Macintosh laryngoscope to investigate the efficacy of the McGrath VL for routine nasotracheal intubation in patients with an expected normal airway.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address the research purpose, the efficacy of the McGrath VL for routine nasotracheal intubation was compared with that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. The predictor variable was the laryngoscopic technique (McGrath VL vs Macintosh laryngoscope). The outcome variables were the time to successful intubation, laryngoscopic views before and after optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM), use of Magill forceps, ease of intubation, and severity of oropharyngeal bleeding.
RESULTS: Data from 35 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery were assessed. The time to intubation was 10.5 seconds shorter in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (34.4 ± 13.7 vs 44.9 ± 15.6 seconds; P = .004). The incidence of grade 1 glottic view before OELM was higher in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (83 vs 57%; P = .019). The frequency of Magill forceps use was lower in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (6 vs 34%; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: McGrath VL facilitates routine nasotracheal intubation in expected normal airways by providing a shorter intubation time and better laryngoscopic views compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address the research purpose, the efficacy of the McGrath VL for routine nasotracheal intubation was compared with that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. The predictor variable was the laryngoscopic technique (McGrath VL vs Macintosh laryngoscope). The outcome variables were the time to successful intubation, laryngoscopic views before and after optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM), use of Magill forceps, ease of intubation, and severity of oropharyngeal bleeding.
RESULTS: Data from 35 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery were assessed. The time to intubation was 10.5 seconds shorter in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (34.4 ± 13.7 vs 44.9 ± 15.6 seconds; P = .004). The incidence of grade 1 glottic view before OELM was higher in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (83 vs 57%; P = .019). The frequency of Magill forceps use was lower in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (6 vs 34%; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: McGrath VL facilitates routine nasotracheal intubation in expected normal airways by providing a shorter intubation time and better laryngoscopic views compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.