Gümüş Nevzat, Dilek Ahmet, Ülger Fatma, Köksal Ersin, Çetinoğlu Erhan Çetin, Özkan Fatih, Güldoğuş Fuat
Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey.
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2014 Oct;42(5):251-6. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2014.58815. Epub 2014 Jul 9.
In this study, our objective was to compare the Cormack and Lehane (C-L) sight scores of direct laryngoscopy in endotracheal intubation with the endoscopic sight scores of the LMA CTrach and video laryngoscope. We also compared the success of endoscopy with the LMA CTrach and video laryngoscopy, intubation time, and its effects on haemodynamic and stress responses.
The study included 100 patients, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores I-III and aged 18-65, who will undergo elective surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group C and Group V. The patients in both groups underwent direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh laryngoscope, and their C-L scores were recorded. In Group C, the patients were intubated with the LMA CTrach, and in Group V, the patients were intubated with a video laryngoscope. Patients' haemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbondioxide, and endoscopic sight scores were recorded.
The demographic characteristics and the ASA classifications of the groups were similar. When endoscopic sight scores were compared with C-L, better sight was obtained in the LMA CTrach group; no significant difference was detected in Group V. Regarding the success of the intubation, no significant difference was detected between groups. However, when intubation times were compared, there was a significant difference between groups. The intubation time was longer in Group C. There was no difference between groups in terms of the percentage changes of haemodynamic parameters, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal carbondioxide values of the patients.
In this study, when endoscopic sight scores were compared, better visualization was obtained in the LMA CTrach group. Therefore, in cases where intubation is difficult to apply in patients, the LMA CTrach can be an alternative application.
在本研究中，我们的目的是比较气管内插管直接喉镜检查的科马克和莱哈尼（C-L）视野评分与喉罩CTrach和视频喉镜的内镜视野评分。我们还比较了使用喉罩CTrach和视频喉镜进行内镜检查的成功率、插管时间及其对血流动力学和应激反应的影响。
该研究纳入了100例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）评分I-III且年龄在18-65岁之间、将接受择期手术的患者。患者被随机分为两组：C组和V组。两组患者均使用麦金托什喉镜进行直接喉镜检查，并记录其C-L评分。C组患者使用喉罩CTrach进行插管，V组患者使用视频喉镜进行插管。记录患者的血流动力学参数、血氧饱和度、呼气末二氧化碳和内镜视野评分。
两组的人口统计学特征和ASA分类相似。将内镜视野评分与C-L评分进行比较时，喉罩CTrach组获得了更好的视野；V组未检测到显著差异。关于插管成功率，两组之间未检测到显著差异。然而，比较插管时间时，两组之间存在显著差异。C组的插管时间更长。患者的血流动力学参数、血氧饱和度和呼气末二氧化碳值的百分比变化在两组之间没有差异。
在本研究中，比较内镜视野评分时，喉罩CTrach组获得了更好的视野。因此，在患者插管困难的情况下，喉罩CTrach可以作为一种替代应用。
