Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Anaesthesia. 2015 Apr;70(4):400-6. doi: 10.1111/anae.13016.
Numerous indirect laryngoscopes have been introduced into clinical practice and their use for tracheal intubation under local anaesthesia has been described. However, a study comparing indirect laryngoscopic vs fibreoptic intubation under local anaesthesia and sedation appears lacking. Therefore, we evaluated both techniques in 100 patients with an anticipated difficult nasal intubation time for intubation the primary outcome. We also assessed success rate, glottic view, Ramsey score, and patients' and anaesthetists' satisfaction. The median (IQR [range]) time for intubation was significantly shorter with the videolaryngoscope with 38 (24-65 [11-420]) s vs 94 (48-323 [19-1020]) s (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the success rate of intubation (96% for both techniques; p > 0.9999) and satisfaction of the anaesthetists and patients. We conclude that in anticipated difficult nasal intubation a videolaryngoscope represents an acceptable alternative to fibreoptic intubation.
已经有许多间接喉镜被引入临床实践，并且已经描述了它们在局部麻醉下进行气管插管的用途。然而，对于局部麻醉和镇静下间接喉镜与纤维光学插管的比较研究似乎缺乏。因此，我们评估了 100 例预计鼻插管困难的患者，以插管为主要结局。我们还评估了成功率、声门视图、拉姆齐评分以及患者和麻醉师的满意度。使用视频喉镜插管的中位（IQR [范围]）时间明显短于纤维光学喉镜，分别为 38（24-65 [11-420]）s 和 94（48-323 [19-1020]）s（p<0.0001）。两种技术的插管成功率（均为 96%；p>0.9999）和麻醉师和患者的满意度均无差异。我们的结论是，在预计鼻插管困难的情况下，视频喉镜是纤维光学插管的一种可接受的替代方法。
