Dept of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal, Nehru Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh., U.P., India.
Dept of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal, Nehru Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh., U.P., India.
J Clin Anesth. 2016 Nov;34:483-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.05.027. Epub 2016 Jul 15.
Anticipated and unanticipated difficult airways are often encountered by anesthesiologists in their clinical practice. There are various devices available in such situations. We aim to compare King Vision video laryngoscope and Lightwand for their performance as an intubating device in predicted difficult intubation.
Prospective, randomized, single blind study.
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College.
Sixty ASA 1 and 2 with Mallampati grade III and IV.
Patients were divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each. Patients of King Vision group [n=30] and Lightwand group [n=30] were intubated using respective devices. Primary outcome measure was time taken to intubate whereas secondary outcome measure ware number of attempts for intubation, no of adjustment maneuvers, changes in heart rate and mean arterial pressure and airway trauma.
Mean intubation time using King Vision video laryngoscope (19.50±6.73 seconds was lower than the intubation time using Lightwand 25.40±7.42 s, P=.00). The difference between number of attempts, success of intubation, numbers of adjustment maneuvers were comparable. There was a significant rise in heart rate within the groups from the pre-induction values. However inter group variations were similar. In addition, there was a significant rise in mean arterial pressure within the groups from the pre-induction values. Inter group variations show less increase in mean arterial pressure with Lightwand at immediate post intubation (P=.0234) and at 3 min and 5 min post intubation anesthesia.
在临床实践中，麻醉师经常会遇到预期和非预期的困难气道。在这种情况下，有各种设备可用。我们旨在比较 King Vision 视频喉镜和 Lightwand 在预测困难插管中的插管性能。
前瞻性、随机、单盲研究。
贾瓦哈拉尔尼赫鲁医学院。
60 名 ASA 1 和 2 级，Mallampati 分级 III 和 IV 级。
患者分为两组，每组 30 名。King Vision 组 [n=30] 和 Lightwand 组 [n=30] 的患者分别使用各自的设备进行插管。主要结局测量是插管时间，次要结局测量是插管尝试次数、调整次数、心率和平均动脉压变化以及气道创伤。
使用 King Vision 视频喉镜（19.50±6.73 秒）的平均插管时间低于使用 Lightwand 的插管时间（25.40±7.42 秒，P=.00）。尝试次数、插管成功率、调整次数的差异无统计学意义。两组的心率均从诱导前值升高。然而，组间变化相似。此外，两组的平均动脉压均从诱导前值升高。组间比较显示，Lightwand 在即刻插管后（P=.0234）和插管后 3 分钟和 5 分钟的麻醉时，平均动脉压升高幅度较小。
