Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Centre of Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
Anaesthesia. 2010 Aug;65(8):820-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06406.x. Epub 2010 Jun 21.
Flexible fibreoptic intubation is widely accepted as an important modality for the management of patients with difficult airways. We compared the aScope, a novel, single-use, flexible video-endoscope designed to aid tracheal intubation, with a standard flexible intubating fibrescope, by examining the performance of 21 anaesthetists during an easy and difficult intubation simulation in a manikin. Intubation success, time for intubation, and rating of the devices (using a scale from 1, excellent to 6, fail) were documented. Intubation times were similar for both flexible 'scopes in the scenarios (p = 0.59). Successful intubation rates were higher for the standard intubating fibrescope (17/21, 81%) than the aScope (14/21, 67%; p = 0.02) in the difficult intubation scenario. The median (IQR[range]) ratings for the standard fibrescope vs the aScope were respectively: overall, 2 (1.75-2 [1-2.5]) vs 3 (2-3.25 [1-5]) (p < 0.0001); picture quality 2 (1.5-2 [1-3]) vs 3 (2-4 [1-5]) (p < 0.0001). The aScope was also successfully used to facilitate tracheal intubation in five patients with anticipated or unanticipated difficult airways. Picture quality was sufficient to identify the anatomical landmarks. Although the performance of the aScope is acceptable, it does not meet the current quality of standard flexible intubation fibrescopes.
纤维光导喉镜插管被广泛认为是处理困难气道患者的重要手段。我们比较了一种新型的一次性使用的柔性视频内镜 aScope 和一种标准的柔性插管纤维镜,在模拟的容易和困难的插管情况下,检查了 21 名麻醉师的操作性能。记录插管成功率、插管时间和设备评分(1 分为优秀,6 分为失败)。在两种情况下,柔性“scope”的插管时间相似(p=0.59)。在困难插管情况下,标准插管纤维镜的插管成功率(17/21,81%)高于 aScope(14/21,67%;p=0.02)。标准纤维镜与 aScope 的总体评分中位数(IQR[范围])分别为:2(1.75-2[1-2.5])比 3(2-3.25[1-5])(p<0.0001);图像质量 2(1.5-2[1-3])比 3(2-4[1-5])(p<0.0001)。aScope 还成功地用于 5 例预期或意外困难气道患者的气管插管。图像质量足以识别解剖标志。尽管 aScope 的性能可以接受,但它不符合标准柔性插管纤维镜的当前质量标准。