Malik M A, Maharaj C H, Harte B H, Laffey J G
Department of Anaesthesia, Clinical Sciences Institute, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Nov;101(5):723-30. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen231. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentax AWS, Glidescope, and the Truview EVO2, in comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope, when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization.
One hundred and twenty consenting patients presenting for surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using a Macintosh (n=30), Glidescope (n=30), Truview EVO2 (n=30), or AWS (n=30) laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by one of the three anaesthetists experienced in the use of each laryngoscope.
The Glidescope, AWS, and Truview EVO2 each reduced the intubation difficulty score (IDS), improved the Cormack and Lehane glottic view, and reduced the need for optimization manoeuvres, compared with the Macintosh. The mean IDS was significantly lower with the Glidescope and AWS compared with the Truview EVO2 device, and the IDS was lowest with the AWS. The duration of tracheal intubation attempts was significantly shorter with the Macintosh compared with the other devices. There were no differences in success rates between the devices tested. The AWS produced the least haemodynamic stimulation.
The Glidescope and AWS laryngoscopes required more time but reduced intubation difficulty and improved glottic view over the Macintosh laryngoscope more than the Truview EVO2 laryngoscope when used in patients undergoing cervical spine immobilization.
本研究旨在评估在使用手动轴向颈椎固定法对颈部进行固定的患者中,与麦金托什喉镜相比,宾得AWS喉镜、Glidescope喉镜和Truview EVO2喉镜在气管插管时的有效性。
120例同意接受需要气管插管手术的患者被随机分配,分别使用麦金托什喉镜(n = 30)、Glidescope喉镜(n = 30)、Truview EVO2喉镜(n = 30)或AWS喉镜(n = 30)进行插管。所有患者均由三位分别熟练使用每种喉镜的麻醉医生之一进行插管操作。
与麦金托什喉镜相比,Glidescope喉镜、AWS喉镜和Truview EVO2喉镜均降低了插管困难评分(IDS),改善了科马克和莱汉声门视野,并减少了优化操作的需求。与Truview EVO2喉镜相比,Glidescope喉镜和AWS喉镜的平均IDS显著更低,且AWS喉镜的IDS最低。与其他设备相比,使用麦金托什喉镜时气管插管尝试的持续时间显著更短。各测试设备的成功率无差异。AWS喉镜产生的血流动力学刺激最小。
在颈椎固定的患者中使用时,与Truview EVO2喉镜相比,Glidescope喉镜和AWS喉镜虽然需要更多时间,但与麦金托什喉镜相比,它们降低了插管难度,改善了声门视野。