Respiratory investigation · 2020
A comparative study of the Parker Flex-Tip tube versus standard portex tube for oral fiberoptic intubation in bronchoscopy performed by pulmonologists with limited experience.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yamauchi Hiroyoshi, Nakayama Masayuki, Yamamoto Shinichi, Sata Masafumi, Mato Naoko, Bando Masashi, Hagiwara Koichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fiberoptic tracheal intubation (FTI) in bronchoscopy is widely performed with a conventional Portex tracheal tube (PTT). Occasionally, it is difficult for pulmonologists with limited experience to insert a tube beyond the vocal cords and advance it into the trachea. A new endotracheal tube, the Parker Flex-Tip tube (PFT), was recently designed. We compared the usefulness and safety of PFT versus PTT for FTI in bronchoscopy performed by pulmonologists with limited experience.
METHODS: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the PFT group (n = 20) or PTT group (n = 20). The time required for the tip of the endotracheal tube to pass from the mouth to the carina, the number of vomiting reflexes, the number of attempts to pass the tube through the vocal cords during intubation, complications, and technical difficulty of intubation were evaluated.
RESULTS: Both the PFT and PTT groups exhibited high intubation success rates (100% vs. 90%, respectively). The PFT group was intubated faster than the PTT group (11.5 [5-45] s vs. 22.5 [8-270] s, respectively, p < 0.01). The PFT group showed fewer vomiting reflexes and tube impingements than the PTT group (p < 0.05). Operators felt it was easier to intubate with PFT versus PTT (p < 0.01). Complications were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: For pulmonologists with limited experience who perform FTI in bronchoscopy, intubation using PFT versus PTT is faster and easier, without an increase in complications.
METHODS: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the PFT group (n = 20) or PTT group (n = 20). The time required for the tip of the endotracheal tube to pass from the mouth to the carina, the number of vomiting reflexes, the number of attempts to pass the tube through the vocal cords during intubation, complications, and technical difficulty of intubation were evaluated.
RESULTS: Both the PFT and PTT groups exhibited high intubation success rates (100% vs. 90%, respectively). The PFT group was intubated faster than the PTT group (11.5 [5-45] s vs. 22.5 [8-270] s, respectively, p < 0.01). The PFT group showed fewer vomiting reflexes and tube impingements than the PTT group (p < 0.05). Operators felt it was easier to intubate with PFT versus PTT (p < 0.01). Complications were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: For pulmonologists with limited experience who perform FTI in bronchoscopy, intubation using PFT versus PTT is faster and easier, without an increase in complications.