Lee Ruben A, van Zundert André A J, Maassen Ralph L J G, Willems Remi J, Beeke Leon P, Schaaper Jan N, van Dobbelsteen Johan, Wieringa Peter A
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Therapy, Catharina Hospital-Brabant Medical School, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Anesth Analg. 2009 Jan;108(1):187-91. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818d1904.
Modern, video laryngoscopes provide an easier view of the glottis, possibly facilitating easier intubations. We describe an objective method for evaluating the benefits of video-assisted laryngoscopy, compared with standard techniques using force measurements.
Macintosh and video laryngoscopes (both Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) were used on the patients until the anesthesiologist was convinced he or she had the best possible view of the glottis. Actual intubation was only performed with the second of the laryngoscopes. Sensors measured the forces directly applied to the patients' maxillary incisors. Additionally, common subjective pre- (e.g., Mallampati) and intraintubation (e.g., Cormack-Lehane [C&L]) metrics of intubation difficulty were evaluated by the anesthesiologists.
All patients (24 female, [50 +/- 16 yr], 20 male [56 +/- 13 yr]) included in the study were successfully intubated with both the classic and video laryngoscopes. The forces recorded for the classic Macintosh blade ranged from 0 to 87.4 N with a median of 15.3 N, whereas the video laryngoscope forces ranged from 0 to 45.2 N, with a median of 2.1 N. The only factor determined to be significantly influential on the associated forces applied to the maxillary incisors was the laryngoscope type (P < 0.01). Video-assisted laryngoscopes reduced the applied forces over standard blades. Mallampati and C&L grade were not predictive of the forces applied.
Video-assisted laryngoscopes seem beneficial when considering forces applied to the maxillary incisors as an objective metric of intubation difficulty. In this study, we could not support that Mallampati and C&L grades predict the forces that are applied to the maxillary incisors.
现代视频喉镜能更清晰地显示声门,可能使插管更容易。我们描述了一种客观方法,通过力量测量来评估视频辅助喉镜与标准技术相比的优势。
对患者使用Macintosh喉镜和视频喉镜(均为德国图特林根的卡尔·史托斯公司生产),直到麻醉医生确信已获得声门的最佳视野。实际插管仅使用第二个喉镜进行。传感器测量直接施加于患者上颌切牙的力量。此外,麻醉医生还评估了常见的插管困难主观术前指标(如Mallampati分级)和术中指标(如Cormack-Lehane [C&L]分级)。
纳入研究的所有患者(24名女性,[50±16岁],20名男性[56±13岁])使用经典喉镜和视频喉镜均成功插管。经典Macintosh喉镜记录的力量范围为0至87.4 N,中位数为15.3 N,而视频喉镜的力量范围为0至45.2 N,中位数为2.1 N。唯一被确定对施加于上颌切牙的相关力量有显著影响的因素是喉镜类型(P<0.01)。视频辅助喉镜比标准喉镜减少了施加的力量。Mallampati分级和C&L分级不能预测施加的力量。
当将施加于上颌切牙的力量作为插管困难的客观指标时,视频辅助喉镜似乎有益。在本研究中,我们无法支持Mallampati分级和C&L分级能预测施加于上颌切牙的力量这一观点。