Department of Perioperative Medicine, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Anaesthesia. 2016 Dec;71(12):1456-1463. doi: 10.1111/anae.13626. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
We compared the Bonfils and SensaScope rigid fibreoptic scopes in 200 patients with a simulated difficult airway randomised to one of the two devices. A cervical collar inhibited neck movement and reduced mouth opening to a mean (SD) of 23 (3) mm. The primary outcome parameter was overall success of tracheal intubation; secondary outcomes included first-attempt success, intubation times, difficulty of intubation, fibreoptic view and side-effects. The mean (95% CI) overall success rate was 88 (80-94)% for the Bonfils and 89 (81-94)% for the SensaScope (p = 0.83). First-attempt intubation success rates were 63 (53-72)% for the Bonfils and 72 (62-81)% for the SensaScope (p = 0.17). Median (IQR [range]) intubation time was significantly shorter with the SensaScope (34 (20-84 [5-240]) s vs. 45 (25-134 [12-230]) s), and fibreoptic view was significantly better with the SensaScope (full view of the glottis in 79% with the SensaScope vs. 61% with the Bonfils). This might be explained by its steerable tip and the S-formed shape, contributing to better manoeuvrability. There were no differences in the difficulty of intubation or side-effects.
我们在 200 名模拟困难气道的患者中比较了 Bonfils 和 SensaScope 刚性纤维喉镜,将这些患者随机分配到这两种设备之一。颈托限制了颈部运动并将开口减少至平均(SD)23(3)mm。主要转归参数是气管插管的总体成功率;次要结果包括首次尝试成功率、插管时间、插管难度、纤维镜视野和副作用。Bonfils 的总体成功率为 88(80-94)%,SensaScope 的总体成功率为 89(81-94)%(p=0.83)。Bonfils 的首次尝试插管成功率为 63(53-72)%,SensaScope 的首次尝试插管成功率为 72(62-81)%(p=0.17)。SensaScope 的插管中位时间(IQR[范围])明显更短(34(20-84[5-240])s 比 45(25-134[12-230])s),SensaScope 的纤维镜视野明显更好(SensaScope 可观察到 79%的声门,而 Bonfils 为 61%)。这可能是由于其可转向的尖端和 S 形形状,有助于更好地操作。插管难度或副作用没有差异。