van Zundert André, Maassen Ralph, Lee Ruben, Willems Remi, Timmerman Michel, Siemonsma Marc, Buise Marc, Wiepking Marco
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Catharina Hospital, Brabant Medical School, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Anesth Analg. 2009 Sep;109(3):825-31. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181ae39db.
Although most tracheal intubations with direct laryngoscopy are not performed with a styletted endotracheal tube, it is recommended that a stylet can be used with indirect videolaryngoscopy. Recently, there were several reports of complications associated with styletted endotracheal tubes and videolaryngoscopy. In this study, we compared three videolaryngoscopes (VLSs) in patients undergoing tracheal intubation for elective surgery: the GlideScope Ranger (GlideScope, Bothell, WA), the V-MAC Storz Berci DCI (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), and the McGrath (McGrath series 5, Aircraft medical, Edinburgh, UK) and tested whether it is feasible to intubate the trachea of patients with indirect videolaryngoscopy without using a stylet.
Four hundred fifty consecutive adults (ASA PS I-II) undergoing tracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated for airway management with one of the three devices. Anesthesia induction for tracheal intubation consisted of fentanyl-propofol-rocuronium. An independent anesthesiologist used the Cormack-Lehane grading system to score an initial direct laryngoscopic view using a classic metal Macintosh blade. After subsequent positive-pressure ventilation using a face mask and an oxygen-sevoflurane mixture for 1 min, the trachea was intubated using one of the three VLSs. During intubation, the following data were collected: intubation time, number of intubation attempts, use of extra tools to facilitate intubation, and overall satisfaction score of the intubation conditions.
The trachea of every patient was intubated using the VLSs, and none of the patients required conversion to the classic Macintosh laryngoscope. All three VLSs offered equal or better view of the glottis as assessed by the mean Cormack-Lehane grade, compared with the traditional Macintosh laryngoscopy, including a larger viewing angle of the glottic entrance. The average intubation time was 34 +/- 20 s for the GlideScope, 18 +/- 12 s for the V-MAC Storz, and 38 +/- 23 s for the McGrath VLS. Intubation with the Storz was faster (P < 0.05) than the other two VLS tested and necessitated fewer additional tools (P < 0.01), resulting in a higher first-pass successful intubation rate. A stylet had to be used in 7% of the patients in the Storz group versus about 50% of the patients when the other two VLS were used.
The trachea of a large proportion of patients with normal airways can be intubated successfully with certain VLS blades without using a stylet, although the three studied VLSs clearly differ in outcome. The Storz VLS displaces soft tissues in the fashion of a classic Macintosh scope, affording room for tracheal tube insertion and limiting the need for stylet use compared with the other two scopes. Although VLSs offer several advantages, including better visualization of the glottic entrance and intubation conditions, a good laryngeal view does not guarantee easy or successful tracheal tube insertion. We recommend that the geometry of VLSs, including blade design, should be studied in more detail.
尽管大多数直接喉镜下气管插管操作并非使用带有管芯的气管内导管进行,但建议在间接视频喉镜检查时可使用管芯。最近,有几篇关于带有管芯的气管内导管与视频喉镜检查相关并发症的报道。在本研究中,我们比较了接受择期手术气管插管患者使用的三种视频喉镜(VLS):GlideScope Ranger(GlideScope公司,华盛顿州博塞尔)、V-MAC Storz Berci DCI(卡尔史托斯公司,德国图特林根)和麦格拉斯喉镜(麦格拉斯5系列,英国爱丁堡飞机医疗公司),并测试了不使用管芯进行间接视频喉镜检查对患者气管插管是否可行。
连续450例接受择期手术气管插管的成年患者(美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级I-II级)被随机分配使用这三种设备之一进行气道管理。气管插管的麻醉诱导采用芬太尼-丙泊酚-罗库溴铵。一名独立的麻醉医生使用Cormack-Lehane分级系统,用经典的金属麦金托什喉镜镜片对初始直接喉镜视野进行评分。随后使用面罩和氧气-七氟醚混合气体进行1分钟的正压通气后,使用三种VLS之一进行气管插管。插管过程中收集以下数据:插管时间、插管尝试次数、使用额外工具辅助插管的情况以及插管条件的总体满意度评分。
所有患者均使用VLS成功进行了气管插管,无一例患者需要改用经典的麦金托什喉镜。与传统麦金托什喉镜检查相比,通过平均Cormack-Lehane分级评估,所有三种VLS提供的声门视野相同或更好,包括声门入口的视角更大。GlideScope喉镜的平均插管时间为34±20秒,V-MAC Storz喉镜为18±12秒,麦格拉斯VLS为38±23秒。使用Storz喉镜插管比测试的其他两种VLS更快(P<0.05),且需要的额外工具更少(P<0.01),首次插管成功率更高。Storz组7%的患者需要使用管芯,而使用其他两种VLS时约50%的患者需要使用管芯。
尽管所研究的三种VLS在结果上存在明显差异,但很大一部分气道正常的患者在不使用管芯的情况下,使用特定的VLS镜片可成功进行气管插管。与其他两种喉镜相比,Storz VLS以经典麦金托什喉镜的方式推移软组织,为气管导管插入提供空间并减少管芯的使用需求。尽管VLS具有多种优势,包括更好地观察声门入口和插管条件,但良好的喉镜视野并不能保证气管导管易于插入或成功插入。我们建议应更详细地研究VLS的几何形状,包括镜片设计。