Rajan Sunil, Kadapamannil Dilesh, Barua Kaushik, Tosh Pulak, Paul Jerry, Kumar Lakshmi
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, AmritaVishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul-Sep;34(3):381-385. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_296_17.
Nasal intubation with traditional Macintosh laryngoscope usually needs the use of Magill's forceps or external laryngeal manipulation. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ease of intubation during C-MAC videolaryngoscope-assisted nasal intubation using D blade and to compare it with traditional Macintosh laryngoscope-aided nasal intubation. The secondary objectives were comparison of intubation time, attempts, trauma, and hemodynamic stress responses.
Sixty patients requiring nasal intubation were randomized into two groups, M and V. Patients in both the groups received general anesthesia as per a standardized protocol. Laryngoscopy was performed using the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope in group M and with Storz C-Mac videolaryngoscope with D-blade in group V. Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test, and independent samples -test were used as applicable for data analysis.
Intubation was significantly easy in 70% of the patients in group V compared to only 3.3% in group M. Time to intubate was significantly shorter in group V (24 vs 68 s). Though majority of patients were intubated in the first attempt in both groups, the number was more in group V (96.7 vs 70%). There was no case of esophageal intubation in group V, but 2 patients (6.7%) had esophageal intubation in group M. Mucosal trauma was significantly more frequent in group M. There was no statistically significant difference in hemodynamics in both groups.
C MAC videolaryngoscope-aided nasotracheal intubation using D blade is superior in view of easier, quicker, and less traumatic intubation compared to the use of traditional Macintosh laryngoscope.
使用传统麦金托什喉镜进行鼻腔插管通常需要使用麦吉尔钳或外部喉部操作。本研究的主要目的是评估使用D型镜片的C-MAC视频喉镜辅助鼻腔插管时的插管难易程度,并将其与传统麦金托什喉镜辅助鼻腔插管进行比较。次要目的是比较插管时间、尝试次数、创伤和血流动力学应激反应。
60例需要鼻腔插管的患者被随机分为M组和V组。两组患者均按照标准化方案接受全身麻醉。M组使用传统麦金托什喉镜进行喉镜检查,V组使用带有D型镜片的史托斯C-MAC视频喉镜。根据适用情况,使用卡方检验、曼-惠特尼检验和独立样本t检验进行数据分析。
V组70%的患者插管明显更容易,而M组仅为3.3%。V组的插管时间明显更短(24秒对68秒)。虽然两组大多数患者首次尝试即成功插管,但V组的人数更多(96.7%对70%)。V组无食管插管病例,但M组有2例患者(6.7%)发生食管插管。M组黏膜创伤明显更常见。两组血流动力学无统计学显著差异。
与使用传统麦金托什喉镜相比,使用D型镜片的C-MAC视频喉镜辅助鼻气管插管在插管更容易、更快且创伤更小方面更具优势。