El-Tahan Mohamed R, Khidr Alaa M, Gaarour Ihab S, Alshadwi Saeed A, Alghamdi Talal M, Al'ghamdi Abdulmohsen
Anesthesiology Department, King Fahd Hospital of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (formerly University of Dammam), Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Anesthesiology Department, King Fahd Hospital of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (formerly University of Dammam), Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018 Feb;32(1):277-286. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Aug 4.
To test the hypothesis that laryngoscopy using the Airtraq (Prodol Limited, Viscaya, Spain) or King Vision laryngoscope (KVL) (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) would result in a shorter time for successful double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) intubation by users with mixed experience than the time required using the Macintosh or GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA) laryngoscopes.
A randomized, prospective, blind study.
A single university hospital.
The study comprised 133 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery.
Patients were randomly allocated into the following 4 groups of DLTs: Macintosh (n = 32), GlideScope (n = 34), Airtraq (n = 35), or KVL (n = 32).
The following data were recorded: time required for achieving successful DLT intubation; glottis visualization; optimization maneuvers; first-pass success rate; intubation difficulty; failure to intubate, defined as an attempt taking >150 seconds to perform or if peripheral oxygen saturation <92% was noted; and postoperative sore throat and hoarseness were recorded. Compared with GlideScope, the Airtraq resulted in shorter times for achieving successful DLT intubation (median times: 21 s [95% confidence interval 23.9-70.8 s] v 57.5 s [95% confidence interval 46.2-89.1 s], respectively; p = 0.021); a lower score for difficult intubations (p = 0.023); and fewer optimization maneuvers. The 4 laryngoscopes were associated with comparable glottis visualization; first-pass success rate (100%, 100%, 94.4%, and 100%, respectively; p = 0.522); incidence of oropharyngeal trauma; postoperative sore throat; and hoarseness of voice. There were 2 (5.7%) endobronchial intubation failures using the Airtraq due to the inability to advance the DLT through the glottis opening. The experience of the anesthesiologists in using the 4 devices had a statistically significant negative correlation with the time to confirmation of endobronchial intubation (Spearman r -0.392; p < 0.001).
When used by operators with mixed experience, the channeled Airtraq required less time for DLT intubation and was easier to use than the GlideScope, although failures did occur with the Airtraq, whereas they did not occur with the other systems.
检验以下假设,即对于经验参差不齐的使用者而言,使用Airtraq喉镜(西班牙比斯开省Prodol有限公司)或King Vision喉镜(KVL)(丹麦巴勒鲁普市Ambu A/S公司)进行喉镜检查,成功插入双腔支气管导管(DLT)所需的时间,会比使用Macintosh或GlideScope喉镜(华盛顿州博塞尔市Verathon公司)所需的时间短。
一项随机、前瞻性、盲法研究。
一家大学医院。
该研究纳入了133例行择期胸外科手术的患者。
患者被随机分为以下4组DLT:Macintosh组(n = 32)、GlideScope组(n = 34)、Airtraq组(n = 35)或KVL组(n = 32)。
记录以下数据:成功插入DLT所需时间;声门可视化情况;优化操作;首次通过成功率;插管难度;插管失败(定义为尝试插管时间超过150秒或外周血氧饱和度<92%);记录术后咽痛和声音嘶哑情况。与GlideScope相比,使用Airtraq成功插入DLT所需时间更短(中位时间:分别为21秒[95%置信区间23.9 - 70.8秒]和57.5秒[95%置信区间46.2 - 89.1秒];p = 0.021);插管困难评分更低(p = 0.023);优化操作更少。4种喉镜在声门可视化方面相当;首次通过成功率分别为100%、100%、94.4%和100%(p = 0.522);口咽创伤发生率、术后咽痛及声音嘶哑情况相当。使用Airtraq时,有2例(5.7%)因无法将DLT通过声门开口推进而导致支气管内插管失败。麻醉医生使用这4种设备的经验与确认支气管内插管的时间呈显著负相关(Spearman r -0.392;p < 0.001)。
对于经验参差不齐的操作者而言,通道式Airtraq在插入DLT时所需时间比GlideScope少,且使用起来更简便,不过Airtraq确实出现了失败情况,而其他系统未出现此类情况。