Research Associate, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kansai Medical University, 10-15 Fumizono-cho, Moriguchi City, Osaka, Japan.
Anaesthesia. 2010 Jul;65(7):684-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06366.x. Epub 2010 May 28.
Fifteen anaesthetists attempted to intubate the trachea of a manikin lying supine on the ground using the Airway Scope, Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope in three simulated conditions: (1) in room light; (2) in the dark and (3) in daylight. The main outcome measure was the time to ventilate the lungs after successful intubation; the secondary outcome was the success rate of ventilation within 30 s. In room light and in the dark, ventilation after successful tracheal intubation could always be achieved within 30 s for all three devices. There were no clinically meaningful differences in time to ventilate between the three devices. In daylight, time to ventilate the lungs for the Airway Scope was significantly longer than for the Macintosh blade (p < 0.0001; 95% CI for difference 27.5-65.0 s) and for the Airtraq (p < 0.0001; 95% CI for difference 29.2-67.6 s). Ventilation was always successful for the Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes, but for the Airway Scope, only one of 15 participants could successfully ventilate the lungs (p < 0.0001). Therefore, the Airway Scope may have a role for tracheal intubation under room light or in darkness, but may not be so useful in daylight. In contrast, the Airtraq may have a role in both darkness and daylight.
15 名麻醉师尝试使用气道可视喉镜、Airtraq 可视喉镜或 Macintosh 喉镜在仰卧位躺在地上的模拟人身上进行气管插管，模拟三种情况：（1）在室内光线下；（2）在黑暗中；（3）在日光下。主要结局测量指标是成功插管后通气的时间；次要结局测量指标是 30 秒内通气的成功率。在室内光线下和黑暗中，对于所有三种设备，成功气管插管后都可以在 30 秒内实现通气。三种设备之间通气时间无临床意义差异。在日光下，气道可视喉镜通气时间明显长于 Macintosh 叶片（p < 0.0001；差异的 95%置信区间为 27.5-65.0 秒）和 Airtraq（p < 0.0001；差异的 95%置信区间为 29.2-67.6 秒）。Macintosh 和 Airtraq 喉镜的通气总是成功的，但对于气道可视喉镜，只有 15 名参与者中的 1 人能够成功通气（p < 0.0001）。因此，气道可视喉镜在室内光或黑暗中可能有用于气管插管的作用，但在日光下可能用处不大。相比之下，Airtraq 在黑暗和日光下可能都有作用。
