Suppr超能文献

经口气管插管时 GlideScope 视频喉镜与插管型喉罩与直接喉镜的比较。

Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscope and intubating laryngeal mask airway with direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Eur J Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;18(2):117-20. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32833e79e6.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) and intubating laryngeal mask airway (i-LMA) improve the intubation success rate and could be easily learned and performed by paramedic students when compared with the direct laryngoscopic (DL) method. The study was designed as a prospective randomized crossover trial that included 121 paramedic students. All participants were asked to intubate each Ambu Airway Management Trainer manikins after the lecture and demonstration. Successful intubation was defined as the passage of the tube through the vocal cord within 60 s. At the end of the study, a questionnaire survey was given to all participants about their preferences, and they were requested to define each method on an easy-difficult scale. Successful intubation was achieved by 95 students (78.5%) with DL, 112 students (92.6%) with i-LMA, and 111 students (91.7%) with GVL. Mean time of intubation was 25.06±14 s for DL, 22.32±12 s for i-LMA, and 22.63±10 s for GVL. Success rates of i-LMA and GVL were significantly higher compared with DL (P=0.005 and P=0.006, respectively). No significant difference was determined between i-LMA and GVL in terms of successful intubation (P>0.05). This study showed that GVL and i-LMA provided better intubation success rates and were easier for paramedic students when compared with the classic DL method.

摘要

本研究旨在确定与直接喉镜(DL)方法相比,GlideScope 视频喉镜(GVL)和插管喉罩气道(i-LMA)是否能提高插管成功率,并且更容易被急救医学专业学生学习和操作。该研究设计为前瞻性随机交叉试验,纳入 121 名急救医学专业学生。所有参与者在讲座和演示后均被要求使用每个 Ambu 气道管理训练器模型进行插管。将管在 60 秒内通过声带定义为成功插管。研究结束时,对所有参与者进行了问卷调查,了解他们的偏好,并要求他们在难易程度量表上定义每种方法。95 名学生(78.5%)通过 DL 成功插管,112 名学生(92.6%)通过 i-LMA 成功插管,111 名学生(91.7%)通过 GVL 成功插管。DL 的插管时间中位数为 25.06±14 秒,i-LMA 为 22.32±12 秒,GVL 为 22.63±10 秒。与 DL 相比,i-LMA 和 GVL 的插管成功率显著更高(P=0.005 和 P=0.006)。i-LMA 和 GVL 之间的插管成功率无显著差异(P>0.05)。本研究表明,与经典的 DL 方法相比,GVL 和 i-LMA 可提供更高的插管成功率,并且更容易被急救医学专业学生掌握。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验