Ko Jung-In, Ha Sang Ook, Koo Min Seok, Kwon Miyoung, Kim Jieun, Jeon Jin, Park So Hee, Shim Sangwoo, Chang Youjin, Park Taejin
Department of Emergency Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea.
Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2015 Dec 28;2(4):244-249. doi: 10.15441/ceem.15.043. eCollection 2015 Dec.
Airway management in patients with suspected cervical spine injury is classified as a "difficult airway." The best device for managing difficult airways is not known. Therefore, we conducted an intubation study simulating patients with cervical spine injury using three devices: a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope, a video laryngoscope (GlideScope), and a fiberoptic bronchoscope (MAF-TM). Success rates, intubation time, and complication rates were compared.
Nine physician experts in airway management participated in this study. Cervical immobilization was used to simulate a difficult airway. Each participant performed intubation using airway devices in a randomly chosen order. We measured the time to vocal cord visualization, time to endotracheal tube insertion, and total tracheal intubation time. Success rates and dental injury rates were compared between devices.
Total tracheal intubation time using the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope was 13.3 (range, 11.1 to 20.1), 14.9 (range, 12.7 to 22.3), and 19.4 seconds (range, 14.1 to 32.5), respectively. Total tracheal intubation time differed significantly among the devices (P=0.009). Success rates for the Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope, and fiberoptic bronchoscope were 98%, 96%, and 100%, respectively, and dental injury rates were 5%, 19%, and 0%, respectively.
The fiberoptic bronchoscope required longer intubation times than the other devices. However, this device had the best success rate with the least incidence of dental injury.
疑似颈椎损伤患者的气道管理被归类为“困难气道”。目前尚不清楚管理困难气道的最佳设备是什么。因此,我们进行了一项插管研究,使用三种设备模拟颈椎损伤患者:传统的麦金托什喉镜、视频喉镜(GlideScope)和纤维支气管镜(MAF-TM)。比较了成功率、插管时间和并发症发生率。
九位气道管理方面的医师专家参与了本研究。采用颈椎固定来模拟困难气道。每位参与者按照随机选择的顺序使用气道设备进行插管。我们测量了声门可视化时间、气管插管时间和总气管插管时间。比较了不同设备之间的成功率和牙齿损伤率。
使用麦金托什喉镜、GlideScope和纤维支气管镜的总气管插管时间分别为13.3秒(范围为11.1至20.1秒)、14.9秒(范围为12.7至22.3秒)和19.4秒(范围为14.1至32.5秒)。不同设备之间的总气管插管时间存在显著差异(P = 0.009)。麦金托什喉镜、GlideScope和纤维支气管镜的成功率分别为98%、96%和100%,牙齿损伤率分别为(5%、19%和0%)。
纤维支气管镜的插管时间比其他设备更长。然而,该设备的成功率最高,牙齿损伤发生率最低。