Tung Alan, Griesdale Donald E G
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9.
Department of Anesthesia, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9; Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada V5Z 1M9.
J Clin Anesth. 2013 Dec;25(8):644-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.07.005. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
To compare the GlideScope Groove (GG) with conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) on intubation times, intubation attempts, and glottic visualization of an airway mannequin by medical students.
Randomized crossover trial.
Intensive care unit of an academic tertiary-care hospital.
34 medical students with no airway management experience.
Each participant received standardized video instruction on all three laryngoscopes and was given 10 minutes to practice with each device. The participants had two attempts using DL, and then had two attempts each with either the GG or GVL in random order.
Time-to-intubate the mannequin in seconds was recorded. Secondary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane grade and number of intubation attempts, also recorded.
The median number of seconds required to successfully intubate the mannequin with DL, GVL, and GG were 17.4 seconds [interquartile range (IQR) 13.2 - 22.1)], 17.7 seconds (IQR 14.9 - 21.0), and 21.7 seconds (IQR 15.4 - 37.0), respectively. No differences in time-to-intubate was noted among the three devices (P = 0.45). A Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view was obtained for 25 of 34 participants (74%) with DL, 32 of 34 participants (94%) with GVL, and 34 of 34 participants (100%) with GG. First-attempt intubation success was 30 of 34 participants (88%) with DL, 34 of 34 participants (100%) with GVL, and 11 of 34 participants (32%) with GG. Using the GG, 6 of 24 participants (18%) required three attempts. More attempts were required for the GG than for DL (P < 0.001) or GVL (P < 0.001).
GG was not superior to DL or GVL in time-to-intubate an airway mannequin.
比较GlideScope Groove（GG）喉镜与传统GlideScope视频喉镜（GVL）及直接喉镜（DL）在医学生对气道模型进行插管操作时的插管时间、插管尝试次数和声门可视化情况。
随机交叉试验。
一所学术性三级护理医院的重症监护病房。
34名无气道管理经验的医学生。
每位参与者接受了关于所有三种喉镜的标准化视频指导，并给予10分钟时间使用每种设备进行练习。参与者先用DL进行两次尝试，然后再分别对GG或GVL进行两次尝试，顺序随机。
记录对模型进行插管的时间（以秒为单位）。次要指标包括Cormack-Lehane分级和插管尝试次数，也进行记录。
使用DL、GVL和GG成功对模型插管所需的中位时间分别为17.4秒[四分位间距（IQR）13.2 - 22.1]、17.7秒（IQR 14.9 - 21.0）和21.7秒（IQR 15.4 - 37.0）。三种设备在插管时间上未发现差异（P = 0.45）。34名参与者中，使用DL时有25人（74%）获得Cormack-Lehane 1级视野，使用GVL时有32人（94%），使用GG时有34人（100%）。首次尝试插管成功的比例，使用DL时为34人中的30人（88%），使用GVL时为34人中的34人（100%），使用GG时为34人中的11人（32%）。使用GG时，24名参与者中有6人（18%）需要进行三次尝试。GG所需的尝试次数多于DL（P < 0.001）或GVL（P < 0.001）。
在对气道模型进行插管的时间方面，GG并不优于DL或GVL。
