Greenland K B, Liu G, Tan H, Edwards M, Irwin M G
Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, and Anaesthesiology and Critical Care - School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Anaesthesia. 2007 May;62(5):509-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05003.x.
A randomised cross-over study was performed in 34 patients with no evidence of airway difficulties, following induction of general anaesthesia, to compare the efficacy of the Levitan FPS scope (LFPS) and the single-use bougie for tracheal intubation during simulated grade IIIa laryngoscopy. Success rates for intratracheal placement of the device, and the time required for insertion and tracheal intubation were recorded. Both devices were equally successful (31/34 for the LFPS vs 29/34 for the bougie) for insertion into the glottis. The mean insertion time for the LFPS was statistically longer than that for the bougie (4.4-12.5 s) but this difference was not clinically relevant. Intubation times were similar between the two devices. Major problems hindering successful intubation using the LFPS were the presence of a narrow epiglottic-pharyngeal wall space and copious secretions. An inability to maintain the desired shape was the principal cause of failure with the bougie.
对34例无气道困难证据的患者进行了一项随机交叉研究,在全身麻醉诱导后,比较Levitan FPS喉镜(LFPS)和一次性探条在模拟Ⅲa级喉镜检查期间用于气管插管的效果。记录了设备气管内放置的成功率以及插入和气管插管所需的时间。两种设备插入声门的成功率相同(LFPS为31/34,探条为29/34)。LFPS的平均插入时间在统计学上长于探条(4.4 - 12.5秒),但这种差异在临床上并无意义。两种设备的插管时间相似。阻碍使用LFPS成功插管的主要问题是会厌 - 咽壁间隙狭窄和分泌物过多。无法保持所需形状是探条失败的主要原因。