Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2015
Truview EVO2 Laryngoscope Reduces Intubation Difficulty in Maxillofacial Surgeries.
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.
Shrestha Shubhakalyan, Arora Suman, Jain Divya, Rattan Vidya, Sharma Rakesh Kumar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Truview EVO2 for the management of patients with potentially difficult airways. However, the comparison of Truview EVO2 with the classic Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with maxillofacial trauma remains unevaluated. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the intubation conditions with the Truview EVO2 video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with maxillofacial injury.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I and II requiring nasotracheal intubation for maxillofacial surgery were included in this prospective randomized trial. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2 μg/kg, propofol 2 to 3 mg/kg, and rocuronium bromide 0.6 mg/kg. Intubation was performed with the Macintosh laryngoscope or the Truview EVO2 video laryngoscope. Comparative data based on the Intubation Difficulty Scale score were assessed as the primary outcome. Laryngoscopic view, time taken for glottis visualization, time taken to pass the endotracheal tube, total time to intubate, and the number of optimizing and hemodynamic variables were recorded as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in patient characteristics and preoperative airway assessment parameters. The Intubation Difficulty Scale score was significantly less in the Truview EVO2 group compared with the Macintosh group (mean ± standard deviation, 0.30 ± 0.7 vs 1.70 ± 1.8; P = .002). The Truview EVO2 video laryngoscope required significantly less time for glottic visualization (9.40 ± 10.9; P = .002). The Truview EVO2 provided a significantly better laryngoscopic view as graded by the percentage of glottic opening and the modified Cormack-Lehane grading system compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < .002). The hemodynamic variables, number of optimizing maneuvers, and the incidence of side-effects were comparable in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The Truview EVO2 performs better than the Macintosh laryngoscope because it considerably decreases the intubation difficulty in patients undergoing maxillofacial surgeries. Therefore, the Truview EVO2 could be a good alternative for managing a difficult airway in patients with maxillofacial injury.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I and II requiring nasotracheal intubation for maxillofacial surgery were included in this prospective randomized trial. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2 μg/kg, propofol 2 to 3 mg/kg, and rocuronium bromide 0.6 mg/kg. Intubation was performed with the Macintosh laryngoscope or the Truview EVO2 video laryngoscope. Comparative data based on the Intubation Difficulty Scale score were assessed as the primary outcome. Laryngoscopic view, time taken for glottis visualization, time taken to pass the endotracheal tube, total time to intubate, and the number of optimizing and hemodynamic variables were recorded as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in patient characteristics and preoperative airway assessment parameters. The Intubation Difficulty Scale score was significantly less in the Truview EVO2 group compared with the Macintosh group (mean ± standard deviation, 0.30 ± 0.7 vs 1.70 ± 1.8; P = .002). The Truview EVO2 video laryngoscope required significantly less time for glottic visualization (9.40 ± 10.9; P = .002). The Truview EVO2 provided a significantly better laryngoscopic view as graded by the percentage of glottic opening and the modified Cormack-Lehane grading system compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < .002). The hemodynamic variables, number of optimizing maneuvers, and the incidence of side-effects were comparable in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The Truview EVO2 performs better than the Macintosh laryngoscope because it considerably decreases the intubation difficulty in patients undergoing maxillofacial surgeries. Therefore, the Truview EVO2 could be a good alternative for managing a difficult airway in patients with maxillofacial injury.