Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2019
A comparative randomized trial of intubation success in difficult intubation cases: the use of a Frova intubation catheter versus a Bonfils intubation fiberoscope.
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.
Onal Ozkan, Gumus Irem, Ozdemirkan Aysun, Cicekci Faruk, Sarı Mehmet, Bayram Hasan Huseyin, Ciftci Cansu, Aslanlar Emine, Celik Jale Bengi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: A difficult airway is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in patients who undergo surgical interventions. Therefore, many devices and algorithms have been developed for the management of a difficult airway. However no study has been conducted comparing Frova catheter (FC) and a Bonfils fiberoscope (BF) to date.
AIM: To compare the effectiveness and success of two devices, a FC and BF, in difficult intubation cases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Design: Single-centre randomized controlled trial in patients with difficult airways. The assignment order was created by unplanned number charts, and the assignment was hidden in closed covers, which were not unlocked until case permission had been provided. Setting: The trial was undertaken in a university hospital in Turkey. The primary analysis was based on 60 participants (n = 30, n = 30) with difficult intubation. The main outcomes were the success rates of placement of the tracheal tube in the trachea and the duration of the tracheal intubation process.
RESULTS: In the BF group, successful intubation was carried out in 25 of the 30 (83.3%) patients, whereas intubation was successful in 28 of the 30 patients (93.3%) in the FC group. Patients who could not be intubated with the first device were intubated with the other device. The mean duration of intubation was 109 (85-140) s in the BF group, whereas it was 38.8 (26-60) s in the FC group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both devices were successful in difficult intubation cases. However, given the shorter duration of intubation using the FC and its lower cost as compared with that of the BF, the FC can be considered superior to the BF in difficult intubation cases.
AIM: To compare the effectiveness and success of two devices, a FC and BF, in difficult intubation cases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Design: Single-centre randomized controlled trial in patients with difficult airways. The assignment order was created by unplanned number charts, and the assignment was hidden in closed covers, which were not unlocked until case permission had been provided. Setting: The trial was undertaken in a university hospital in Turkey. The primary analysis was based on 60 participants (n = 30, n = 30) with difficult intubation. The main outcomes were the success rates of placement of the tracheal tube in the trachea and the duration of the tracheal intubation process.
RESULTS: In the BF group, successful intubation was carried out in 25 of the 30 (83.3%) patients, whereas intubation was successful in 28 of the 30 patients (93.3%) in the FC group. Patients who could not be intubated with the first device were intubated with the other device. The mean duration of intubation was 109 (85-140) s in the BF group, whereas it was 38.8 (26-60) s in the FC group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both devices were successful in difficult intubation cases. However, given the shorter duration of intubation using the FC and its lower cost as compared with that of the BF, the FC can be considered superior to the BF in difficult intubation cases.