Kalbhenn Johannes, Boelke Anike K, Steinmann Daniel
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2012 Aug;22(8):776-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03890.x. Epub 2012 May 31.
Difficult intubation in infants is uncommon but may be a challenge for the anesthesiologist. Many optical-assisted techniques are available to ease endotracheal placement of tube but have not been systemically evaluated for pediatric practice.
The study was performed to compare conventional pediatric Macintosh - with different optical laryngoscopes in difficult endotracheal intubation in infants. We hypothesized that inexperienced anesthetists would perform more successful with optical devices and that differences between the devices would be found.
METHODS/MATERIALS: In this randomized controlled study, 30 anesthesia residents performed endotracheal intubation in an infant model of difficult airway presenting with airway obstruction and neck immobilization. Primary endpoints were intubation success rate and intubation time. Beyond that glottis view, dental trauma and difficulty of technique were evaluated and measured by a study observer. Macintosh, Airtraq(®), Storz DCI(®) -, and Gyrus Infant Bullard(®) laryngoscopes were used in random order. After standardized briefing every resident had three attempts of at most 120 s with every device to place a 3-mm tube into the trachea. Glottis view and difficulty of technique were rated by the residents using classification of Cormack/Lehane and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0 = easy to 10 = very difficult).
Success rate was 41% with conventional Macintosh, 43% with Airtraq(®), 62% with Storz DCI(®), and 100% with Bullard(®) laryngoscopes. Median time from passing the lips to first ventilation was 67 s (Storz DCI(®) laryngoscope), 54 s (Macintosh laryngoscope), 45 s (Airtraq(®) laryngoscope), and 21 s (Bullard(®) laryngoscope), respectively. Dental trauma did not occur with Bullard(®) laryngoscope and was frequent with Storz DCI(®) laryngoscope (39%) and Macintosh laryngoscope (42%). Glottis view was best with Bullard(®) laryngoscope (Grade 1 in 100%) and worst with Macintosh laryngoscope (Grade 1 in 2%). Difficulty of technique was rated with a VAS score of 2 (Bullard(®) laryngoscope), 4.5 (Storz DCI(®) laryngoscope) and 6 (Airtraq(®) - and Macintosh laryngoscopes).
Inexperienced anesthetists have higher success rates and shorter intubation times with optical-assisted laryngoscopes compared with conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Gyrus Infant Bullard(®) laryngoscope significantly undertakes best success rate and shortest intubation time with mildest impact to maxillary dents and easiest technique. Our findings support the hypothesis that optical laryngoscopes can be used successfully by inexperienced anesthetists in simulated difficult pediatric airway conditions.
婴儿困难插管并不常见,但对麻醉医生来说可能是一项挑战。有许多光学辅助技术可用于辅助气管导管的放置,但尚未在儿科实践中进行系统评估。
本研究旨在比较传统的儿科麦金托什喉镜与不同的光学喉镜在婴儿困难气管插管中的效果。我们假设经验不足的麻醉医生使用光学设备插管会更成功,并且不同设备之间会存在差异。
方法/材料:在这项随机对照研究中,30名麻醉住院医师在一个模拟婴儿困难气道的模型上进行气管插管,该模型表现为气道梗阻且颈部固定。主要终点是插管成功率和插管时间。除此之外,由研究观察员评估声门视野、牙齿损伤和操作难度。随机顺序使用麦金托什喉镜、Airtraq(®)喉镜、史托斯DCI(®)喉镜和Gyrus Infant Bullard(®)喉镜。在标准化培训后,每位住院医师使用每种设备最多进行3次、每次最多120秒的尝试,将一根3毫米的导管插入气管。住院医师使用Cormack/Lehane分类法和视觉模拟量表(VAS;0 = 容易,10 = 非常困难)对声门视野和操作难度进行评分。
使用传统麦金托什喉镜的成功率为41%,使用Airtraq(®)喉镜的成功率为43%,使用史托斯DCI(®)喉镜的成功率为62%,使用Bullard(®)喉镜的成功率为100%。从通过嘴唇到首次通气的中位时间分别为67秒(史托斯DCI(®)喉镜)、54秒(麦金托什喉镜)、45秒(Airtraq(®)喉镜)和21秒(Bullard(®)喉镜)。使用Bullard(®)喉镜未发生牙齿损伤,而使用史托斯DCI(®)喉镜(39%)和麦金托什喉镜(42%)时牙齿损伤很常见。使用Bullard(®)喉镜时声门视野最佳(100%为1级),使用麦金托什喉镜时最差(2%为1级)。操作难度的VAS评分为2(Bullard(®)喉镜)、4.5(史托斯DCI(®)喉镜)和6(Airtraq(®)喉镜和麦金托什喉镜)。
与传统麦金托什喉镜相比,经验不足的麻醉医生使用光学辅助喉镜插管成功率更高、插管时间更短。Gyrus Infant Bullard(®)喉镜的成功率显著最高,插管时间最短,对上颌牙齿的影响最小,操作最容易。我们的研究结果支持以下假设:经验不足的麻醉医生在模拟的儿科困难气道情况下可以成功使用光学喉镜。