TruviewTM EVO2光学喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜显露喉部结构的比较

目的比较Truview^TM EVO2光学喉镜与Macintosh直接喉镜在经口气管插管中显露喉部结构的效果，探讨该光学喉镜在全麻气管插管中的应用价值。方法经口气管插管全身麻醉下实施择期手术的ASAI-Ⅱ级成人患者200例。麻醉前记录人选患者一般情况和气道评估指标（Mallampati舌咽结构分级、甲颏间距、张口度）。全麻诱导后随机应用直接喉镜或光学喉镜先后显露喉部结构并记录Cormack-Lehane喉部结构显露分级（C／L分级），用后一种喉镜进行气管插管。观察指标包括术前患者一般情况及气道评估指标；C／L分级；喉部结构显露难易度；口咽部损伤；术后咽痛、声音嘶哑等并发症。结果200例患者中男107例，女93例，年龄52岁±13岁，身高164．8cm±11．3cm，体重64．0kg±11．5kg，甲颏间距6．9cm±1．1cm，张口度3．7cm±0．5cm。两种喉镜C／L分级均与Mallampati舌咽结构分级具有相关性（P〈0．01），即Mallampati分级越高，C／L分级越高。有91例两种喉镜C／L分级相同，其中76例为I级，15例为Ⅱ级；4例喉镜C／L分级优于光学喉镜，余105例则光学喉镜优于直接喉镜；在200例病人中，用直接喉镜C／L分级百分比分别为：I级40．O％、Ⅱ级38．5％、Ⅲ级20．5％、IV级1％；而光学喉镜为：I级78．5％、Ⅱ级21.0％、Ⅲ级0．5％。所有患者未记录到明显口咽部损伤和术后咽痛及声音嘶哑。结论Truview^TM EVO2光学喉镜对喉部结构显露C／L分级明显优于Macintosh直接喉镜，从而提示应用光学喉镜可能有助于困难气道的处理。     

McGrath喉镜和Macintosh喉镜在张口困难患者气管插管中的比较

目的 比较McGrath视频喉镜(5系列)和Macintosh直接喉镜在张口困难患者气管插管中的应用效果.方法 择期手术患者18例,张口度1.5～3 cm,全麻诱导后,先用Macintosh喉镜暴露声门,退出后再用McGrath喉镜暴露声门并气管插管.记录两种喉镜声门暴露情况(Cormack-Lehane分级).结果 Macintosh喉镜CL分级(Ⅰ～Ⅳ级)为2/3/7/3例,McGrath喉镜CL分级为7/8/3/0例(P＜0.05).有3例患者不能置入Macintosh喉镜.结论 对于张口度在1.5～3 cm的患者,采用McGrath喉镜暴露声门明显好于Macintosh喉镜.     

Airtraq喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜在经口气管插管时血流动力学的比较

目的比较Airtraq视频喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜经口气管插管时心血管反应。方法40例拟择期经口气管插管全麻下手术的患者,按照随机数字表随机分为两组,Airtraq组（A组）和Macintosh喉镜组（M组）,每组20例。观察麻醉诱导前、诱导后、插管即刻、插管后1、3min时的心率（HR）、血压和心率收缩压乘积（ratepressureproduct,RPP）。结果两组声门暴露时间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,导管置入时间A组（6±4）S短于M组（10±4）S（P〈0．01）。两组诱导后的HR、血压和RPP值都较诱导前的基础值明显下降（P〈0．05）,插管即刻、插管后1min的心血管指标较诱导后明显增高（P〈0．05）。A组插管后3min心血管指标与诱导后比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,而M组3min时心血管指标[收缩压（SBP）（106±17）mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）,舒张压（DBP）（65±10）mmHg,平均动脉压（MAP）（78±19）mmHg,HR（92±12）次／分,RPP（9748±2072）]与诱导后[SBP（93±15）mmHg,DBP（54±9）mmHg,MAP（67±10）mmHg,HR（85±12）次／分,RPP（8117±1886）]比较差异仍有统计学意义（R0．05）。A组、M组插管后5min心血管指标与诱导后比较差异均无统计学意义。结论与Macintosh直接喉镜相比,应用Airtraq视频喉镜行经口气管插管可减少插管置入时间,且血流动力学反应较轻。     

Airtraq(R)喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜在经口气管插管时血流动力学的比较

目的比较Airtraq(R)视频喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜经口气管插管时心血管反应。方法40例拟择期经口气管插管全麻下手术的患者,按照随机数字表随机分为两组,Airtraq(R)组（A组）和Macintosh喉镜组（M组）,每组20例。观察麻醉诱导前、诱导后、插管即刻、插管后1、3 min时的心率(HR)、血压和...     

可视喉镜与直接喉镜在双腔支气管插管中的应用

目的观察比较可视喉镜与直接喉镜在双腔支气管插管中的临床效果,探讨两者在双腔支气管插管中的应用价值。方法选择择期需行双腔支气管插管的胸外科手术患者80例,男50例,女30例,年龄18~70岁,ASAⅠ~Ⅲ级,将患者随机分为两组:可视喉镜组和直接喉镜组,每组40例,分别使用可视喉镜和直接喉镜行双腔支气管插管。观察比较两组声门显露(C-L)分级、插管时间、第一次插管成功率、插管反应阳性例数和术后24h咽喉痛发生率;监测患者入室后(T_0)、诱导后插管前1min(T_1)、插管后1min(T_2)、2min(T_3)、3min(T_4)MAP、HR;记录口腔损伤出血情况以及气管壁及隆突损伤情况。结果与可视喉镜组比较,直接喉镜组声门显露C-L分级和第一次插管成功率明显升高,插管时间明显缩短,插管反应阳性发生率和术后24h咽喉痛发生率明显降低(P0.05)。两组口腔损伤出血情况及气管壁及隆突损伤情况差异无统计学意义。T_2、T_3时两组MAP明显低于T_1时,且T_2、T_3时直接喉镜组MAP明显低于可视喉镜组(P0.05)。结论与可视喉镜比较,对无预计困难气道的患者,直接喉镜更适用于双腔支气管插管。     

可视喉镜在新生儿手术气管插管中的应用

目的探讨可视喉镜在新生儿手术气管插管中的应用。方法选择2013-07—2013-12间行新生儿手术50例为研究对象,随机分为可视喉镜组(A组)25例和直接喉镜组(B组)25例,比较两组新生儿气管插管时声门暴露时间,完成气管插管的时间,插管一次成功率和新生儿插管前3 min、插管时及插管后3 min的平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)的变化及插管相关不良反应。结果 A组与B组相比,A组声门暴露时间,完成气管插管的时间均明显缩短,A组插管一次成功率96%,B组插管一次成功率80%,差异有统计学意义。两组新生儿插管前和插管后3 min的MAP和HR比较,差异无统计学意义。但与B组相比,插管时A组新生儿MAP和HR明显降低,差异有统计学意义。A组新生儿插管时不良反应明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义。结论可视喉镜可提高新生儿手术气管插管时成功率,缩短声门暴露时间,气管插管的时间,降低插管不良反应,提高新生儿手术麻醉安全性。     

可视喉罩与可视喉镜用于困难气管插管的比较

目的 比较可视喉罩和可视喉镜用于困难气管插管患者的效果。

方法 选择气管插管全麻手术患者90例,男27例,女63例,年龄18～64岁,BMI<30 kg/m²,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,根据术前简化气道风险指数（SARI）筛选困难气管插管患者（SARI评分≥3分）。采用随机数字表法将患者分为两组：可视喉罩组（S组）和可视喉镜组（C组）,每组45例。S组使用可视喉罩引导气管插管,C组使用可视喉镜完成气管插管。记录声门暴露分级、声门暴露时间、气管插管时间、总插管时间、插管成功例数,插管前、插管即刻、插管后3 min和拔管前、拔管即刻、拔管后3 min的HR和MAP、术后插管并发症（声音嘶哑、咽喉痛）的发生情况。

结果 与C组比较,S组声门暴露时间［Ｓ组（18.2±7.6）s vs C组（14.1±2.8）s］明显延长（P＜0.05）,S组插管即刻和拔管即刻HR明显减慢,MAP明显降低（P＜0.05）。两组声门暴露分级、气管插管时间、总插管时间、插管成功率和术后插管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。

结论 在困难气管插管的患者中,使用可视喉罩与可视喉镜均能快速有效地完成气管插管,与可视喉镜比较,使用可视喉罩声门暴露时间延长,插管与拔管即刻血流动力学波动幅度较小。     

预计困难插管患者使用Airtraq喉镜、Shikani喉镜和Macintosh喉镜行气管插管的比较

目的 探讨Airtraq喉镜、Shikani喉镜和Macintosh喉镜在预计困难插管患者中行气管插管的应用价值.方法 行全麻插管手术预计困难插管患者75例,随机分为Airtraq喉镜组(A组)、Shikani喉镜组(S组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组),三次内插管成功者入选本研究,每组25例.记录插管时间,麻醉诱导前(T1)、诱导后(T2)、插管结束即刻(T3)和插管后3 min(T4)时的MAP和HR.同时观察各组患者的声门暴露程度以及有无咽喉损伤.结果 A组插管时间最短,其次为S组,M组最慢,A组明显短于S组和M组(P＜0.05).A组插管成功率高于S组和M组(P＜0.05).与T2时比较,T3、T4时M组MAP明显升高、HR明显增快(P＜0.05).T3、T4时M组MAP高于A组,HR快于A组(P＜0.05).A组声门完全显露率最高,其次为S组,M组最低,A组明显优于S组和M组(P＜0.05).A组咽喉损伤发生率低于M组(P＜0.05).结论 在预计困难插管条件下,与Shikani喉镜和Macintosh喉镜比较,使用Airtraq喉镜可以缩短插管时间,提高插管成功率,减少气管插管时心血管应激反应,维持血流动力学稳定,降低咽喉损伤的发生率.     

Shikani可视喉镜与Mc Coy喉镜对气管插管应激反应影响的比较

目的探讨全身麻醉诱导后采用Shikani可视喉镜(SOS)和Mc Coy喉镜(MCL)进行气管插管时的应激反应。方法选择择期手术的患者191例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为SOS组(S组,n=99)和MCL组(M组,n=92),每组中按声门暴露程度各分为三个亚组:S1组(n=34)、S2组(n=33)、S3组(n=32)和M1组(n=30)、M2组(n=30)、M3组(n=32)。静脉麻醉诱导后分别采用SOS(S组)和MCL(M组)实施经口气管插管操作。记录气管插管时间和麻醉诱导前(T0)、麻醉诱导后(T1)、插管后1min(T2)、3min(T3)、5min(T4)时的SBP、DBP、HR和Narcotrend指数(NI),记录插管过程中芬太尼用量,并于T0、T2、T4时检测血糖。结果 M3组芬太尼用量明显多于S3组(P0.05)。M2组1次插管成功率明显低于S2组,M3组1次插管成功率明显低于S3组(P0.05);T2、T4时M3组血糖明显高于T0时和S3组(P0.05)。T2~T4时M3组SBP、DBP明显高于,HR明显快于S3组(P0.05)。结论气管插管导致不同程度的应激反应,与MCL比较,SOS能有效减轻应激反应的程度,缩短插管时间,尤其在困难插管方面具有明显优势。     

HC可视喉镜在新生儿唇裂手术的应用

目的探讨HC可视喉镜在新生儿唇裂手术气管插管时的临床效果和安全性。方法择期行全麻下唇裂修补手术患儿52例,男32例,女20例,出生1~28d,体重2.6~4.8kg,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为普通喉镜组(A组)和HC可视喉镜组(B组)。静注咪达唑仑0.1mg/kg、芬太尼2~4μg/kg、罗库溴铵快速麻醉诱导,吸入1%~3%七氟醚维持麻醉。术中连续监测BP、HR、SpO2和PETCO2。记录患儿声门暴露情况、一次插管成功率和插管时间,以及并发症情况。结果与A组比较,B组声门暴露率、一次插管成功率差异无统计学意义,但气管插管时间明显缩短(P0.05)。插管时及拔管后两组均未见明显并发症。结论 HC可视喉镜可以安全地应用于新生儿唇裂手术的气管插管,缩短气管插管时间。     

A comparison between the Macintosh and the McCoy laryngoscope blades

The view of the larynx using the Macintosh laryngoscope and the McCoy levering laryngoscope was assessed in 177 adult patients. The view with the McCoy blade in the neutral position and in the position (neutral or elevated) that gave the 'best' view were recorded. The McCoy blade in the neutral position was associated with a lower incidence of grade 1 views and a higher incidence of grade 2 views than the Macintosh blade. There was no difference in the incidence of grade 3 views. When views for each patient using the different blades were compared, the McCoy blade in the neutral position produced a worse view than the Macintosh blade (p < 0.0001). The view obtained with the McCoy blade in its 'best' position and the Macintosh blade were similar. In the 152 patients in whom the vocal cords were seen using the Macintosh blade, the view was worse using the McCoy blade in its 'best' position more often than it was better (p = 0.06). In 25 patients, the vocal cords could not be seen with the Macintosh blade; in these patients the view was better with the McCoy blade (the cords were visible) on 14 occasions and worse in one (p = 0.001). We conclude that the McCoy blade in its neutral position does not behave identically to the Macintosh blade. The McCoy blade is a useful aid to difficult intubation but should not replace the Macintosh blade as the first choice laryngoscope.     

Tracheal intubation by non-anesthesia residents using the Pentax-AWS airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope

Study ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of the Pentax-AWS airway scope for tracheal intubation compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope by non-anesthesia residents.DesignProspective, randomized, cohort study.SettingUniversity-affiliated hospital.Patients520 patients who underwent tracheal intubation for general anesthesia.Interventions48 non-anesthesia residents performed tracheal intubation using either the Pentax-AWS or the Macintosh laryngoscope.MeasurementsTime to complete tracheal intubation, number of attempts until successful intubation, and number of intubations of the esophagus were recorded.ResultsTime to secure the airway (sec; mean ± SD) was shorter with the Pentax-AWS than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (44 ± 19 vs. 71 ± 44 sec; P < 0.001). Of the 264 tracheal intubations with the Pentax-AWS, 239 (91%) were completed within 60 seconds, while only 148 (58%) of the 256 tracheal intubations performed with the Macintosh laryngoscope were completed within the same period. The rate of successful intubations on the first attempt was higher with the Pentax-AWS than the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.001). No esophageal intubation was experienced with the Pentax-AWS approach, while 18 occurred with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe Pentax-AWS appears to require less operator skill than the Macintosh laryngoscope. Use of the Pentax-AWS may reduce the time to secure the airway and the incidence of failed tracheal intubation by non-anesthesia residents.     

Comparison of the Glidescope(R), the Pentax AWS(R), and the Truview EVO2(R) with the Macintosh laryngoscope in experienced anaesthetists: a manikin study

Background: The Pentax Airwayscope®, the Glidescope®, and the TruviewEVO2® constitute three novel laryngoscopes that facilitatevisualization of the vocal cords without alignment of the oral,pharyngeal, and tracheal axes. We compared these devices withthe Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated easy and difficultlaryngoscopy. Methods: Thirty-five experienced anaesthetists were allowed up to threeattempts to intubate in each of four laryngoscopy scenariosin a Laerdal® SimMan® manikin. The time required toperform tracheal intubation, the success rate, number of intubationattempts and of optimization manoeuvres, and the severity ofdental compression were recorded. Results: In the simulated easy laryngoscopy scenarios, there was no differencebetween the study devices and the Macintosh in success of trachealintubation. In more difficult tracheal intubation scenarios,the Glidescope® and Pentax AWS®, and to a lesser extentthe Truview EVO2® laryngoscope demonstrated advantages overthe Macintosh laryngoscope including a better view of the glottis,greater success of tracheal intubation, and ease of device use.The Pentax AWS® was more successful in achieving trachealintubation, required less time to successfully perform trachealintubation, caused less dental trauma, and was considered bythe anaesthetists to be easier to use. Conclusions: The Pentax AWS® laryngoscope demonstrated more advantagesover the Macintosh laryngoscope than either the Truview EVO2®or the Glidescope® laryngoscope, when used by experiencedanaesthetists in difficult tracheal intubation scenarios.     

Comparison of Bullard laryngoscope and short-handled Macintosh laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients with simulated restriction of cervical spine movements

Aim: To compare time to intubation, time to optimal laryngoscopy, best laryngeal view, and success rate of intubation with pediatric Bullard laryngoscope and short‐handled Macintosh laryngoscope in children being intubated with neck stabilization. Background: Securing airway of a patient with restricted cervical spine movement has been a challenge faced by anaesthesiologists around the world. Macintosh laryngoscope with manual inline stabilization is most commonly used. Bullard laryngoscope is also useful in this situation as minimal neck movement occurs with its use. Methods: Forty patients, ASA I or II, aged 2–10 years, were enrolled in this prospective, controlled, and randomized study. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Group MB (first laryngoscopy using short‐handled Macintosh laryngoscope followed by pediatric Bullard laryngoscope) and Group BM (first laryngoscopy using pediatric Bullard laryngoscope followed by short‐handled Macintosh laryngoscope) with manual inline stabilization after induction of anesthesia and paralysis. Trachea was intubated orally using the second equipment. Results: Laryngeal view when obtained was always Grade 1 with Bullard laryngoscope (38/38) when compared to Macintosh laryngoscope [Grade 1 (10/40)]. The mean time to laryngoscopy (and intubation) was shorter with Macintosh laryngoscope [15.53 s (38.15 s)] than Bullard laryngoscope [35.21 s (75.71 s)], respectively. Success rate of intubation was higher with Macintosh laryngoscope (100%) when compared to Bullard laryngoscope (70%). Conclusions: Laryngoscopy and intubation is faster using a short‐handled Macintosh laryngoscope with a higher success rate compared to pediatric Bullard laryngoscope in pediatric patients when manual inline stabilization is applied.     

A feasibility study of awake videolaryngoscope‐assisted intubation in patients with periglottic tumour using the channelled King Vision® videolaryngoscope

Airway management in patients with periglottic tumour is a high‐risk procedure with potentially serious consequences. There is no consensus on how best to secure the airway in this group of patients. We conducted a feasibility study of awake tracheal intubation using a King Vision^® videolaryngoscope with a channelled blade in a cohort of 25 patients, with a periglottic tumour requiring diagnostic or radical surgery. We used 10% and 4% lidocaine to topicalise the airway and midazolam and remifentanil for sedation. We recorded the success rate, number of attempts, time to obtain glottic view, time to intubation and complications. Twenty‐three of the 25 patients (92%, 95%CI 75–98%) were intubated with the awake videolaryngoscope‐assisted technique, with 17/23 (74%, 95%CI 54–87%) intubations achieved at the first attempt. Five patients required two and one patient, three attempts at intubation. Two patients (8%, 95%CI 2–25%) could not tolerate the procedure due to inadequate topical anaesthesia. Median (IQR [range]) times to obtain glottic view and to intubate were 19 (17–22 [10–30]) s and 49 (42–71 [33–107]) s, respectively. Traces of blood in the airway were observed in 4/25 (16%, 95%CI 6–35%) patients. Although airway management in this group of patients was expected to be difficult, successful awake intubation with the King Vision videolaryngoscope was achieved in the majority of patients within less than a minute. This study highlights a number of potential advantages of awake videolaryngoscope‐assisted intubation over other awake methods of securing the airway in patients with upper airway obstruction due to periglottic mass.