视频喉镜在气道管理中应用的进展

视频喉镜是能够提供上呼吸道间接视野的新型气管插管设备。在困难气道管理处理方面．与直接喉镜相比．视频喉镜能够改善声门显露的Cormack—Lehane分级,并能在较短时间内达到相同或更高的气管插管成功率。尽管视频喉镜可获得非常好的声门显露．但是应用视频喉镜时插入和推进气管导管有时可发生失败。到目前为止,尚无确切证据表明在正常或困难气道患者视频喉镜应取代直接喉镜。     

Tosight视频喉镜在Klippel-Feil综合征患儿气管插管中的应用

目的探讨Tosight视频喉镜在Klippel-Feil综合征(KFS)患儿气管插管中的应用效果。方法 20例KFS患儿,年龄4~12岁,ASAⅡ或Ⅲ级,随机均分为两组:Tosight可视喉镜组(T组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组)。记录喉镜下喉部显露分级(Cormack-Lehane分级)、气管插管时间、气管插管次数、插管成功率和并发症发生情况。结果 T组全部完成气管插管,M组完成6例气管插管。T组气管插管时间明显短于、插管次数明显少于M组(P0.05)。两组患儿均无严重并发症发生。结论 Tosight视频喉镜用于KFS患儿气管插管操作简单,声门暴露清晰,插管成功率高,插管时间短,优于Macintosh喉镜。     

GlideScope视频喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜经鼻气管插管对血液动力学的影响

本研究皆在比较GlideScope视频喉镜和Macintosh直接喉镜经鼻气管插管时全麻患者的血液动力学变化,从血液动力学角度来观察GlideScope视频喉镜在经鼻气管插管中是否优于常用的Macintosh直接喉镜,为临床安全应用这一新型气管插管系统提供资料。     

HC视频喉镜与Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管效果的比较

目的 比较HC视频喉镜与Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管的效果.方法 择期全麻患者60例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,性别不限,年龄18 ～ 64岁,体重指数19 ～ 27 kg/m2,Mallampati分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法,将其随机分为2组(n=30):HC视频喉镜组(H组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组).麻醉诱导后分别用HC视频喉镜和Macintosh喉镜引导经口气管插管.记录两组患者声门暴露时间、气管插管时间、Cormack-Lehane分级(用于计算声门暴露满意率)、环状软骨按压情况,观察气管插管并发症的发生情况.结果 与M组比较,H组声门暴露满意率升高,环状软骨按压次数降低(P＜0.05).两组患者声门暴露时间、气管插管时间和气管插管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 HC视频喉镜引导气管插管的效果优于Macintosh喉镜.     

Airtraq与GlideScope视频喉镜在颈椎制动患者气管插管中的应用

目的 比较Airtraq与GlideScope视频喉镜与普通Macintosh直接喉镜在颈椎制动患者全麻气管插管中的应用效果以及对血流动力学的影响.方法 择期在气管插管全麻下的手术患者90例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄18～60岁,随机均分为Airtraq视频喉镜组(A组)、GlideScope视频喉镜(G组)和Macintosh直接喉镜组(M组).麻醉诱导后,采用手法控制稳定方法制动头颈部,分别使用Airtraq视频喉镜、GlideScope视频喉镜、Macintosh直接喉镜经口插管.记录三组声门暴露时间、导管置入时间、试插次数、失败例数、有无助手辅助、镜下Cormark-Lehane (C-L)分级,记录插管前、插管后即刻、插管后1、2、3 min的MAP和HR及不良反应.结果 A组声门暴露时间明显长于M组(P＜0.05);A组和G组的导管置入时间明显短于M组(P＜0.05),G组的插管总时间明显短于M组(P＜0.05).A、G两组需要助手辅助比例、插管失败率及并发症发生率均明显低于M组,C-L分级Ⅰ级患者例数明显多于、Ⅲ级患者例数明显少于M组(P＜0.05).M组插管后即刻和插管后1 min MAP明显高于、HR明显快于插管前(P＜0.05).插管后各时点M组HR均明显快于A组和G组(P＜0.05).结论 与Macintosh直接喉镜比较,Airtraq和GlideScope视频喉镜在颈椎制动患者气管插管中声门暴露良好,降低了插管难度,提高了插管成功率.     

视频喉镜与直接喉镜气管插管血压和心率的变化

目的 研究对比视频喉镜与直接喉镜对气管插管心血管反应的影响.方法 40例非心肺疾病择期手术患者,年龄30～58岁,体重42～75 kg.随机分为视频喉镜组与直接喉镜组,每组20例.麻醉诱导均为咪唑安定0.1 mg/kg、丙泊酚1.5 mg、芬太尼2 μg/kg、维席溴铵0.15 mg/kg,均选择在诱导2 min后行气管插管,麻醉维持均采用静吸复合麻醉.记录两组气管插管成功所需时间,患者术前(T1)、麻醉诱导后(插管操作前,T2)、气管导管插入声门后1 min(T3)、插管成功后2 min(T4)、插管成功后5 min(T5)的SBP、DBP与HR的变化.结果 视频喉镜组气管插管成功时间显著长于直接喉镜组(P<0.01);与T1时相比,两组患者T2时SBP和DBP均明显下降(P<0.01),与T2时相比,T3时SBP和DBP均明显升高,HR明显增快(P<0.01),视频喉镜组T3时HR明显慢于直接喉镜组(P<0.05).结论 视频喉镜气管插管后仍产生了心血管反应,但与直接喉镜相比,其心血管反应较轻.     

观察3种不同视频喉镜在模拟困难气道模型气管插管的效果

目的 初次应用3种不同视频喉镜于模拟困难气道模型气管插管时的效果,为临床初次处理困难气道时提供技术数据参考。方法 选择在麻醉科实习1～3个月的实习学生32名,均在调整好的AirSim模拟困难气道模型上使用Macintosh喉镜（M组）,GlideScope(G组)、Hc(H组)和Airtraq(A组)进行气管插管。记录气管插管总时间、获得最佳视野的时间、气管导管置入的时间、气管导管置入次数、喉部暴露分级,同时使用VAS评分评估每种喉镜最佳暴露时使用力量的大小和评价潜在创伤。结果 气管插管总时间最短的是M组。获得最佳视野的时间最短的是M组。气管导管置入时间最短的是M组;声门暴露C/LⅢ级以上,M组、G组、H组和A组暴露情况分别为46.9%、6.2%、9.3%、12.4%。反复置管次数最少的是H组。最佳暴露时A组声门最佳暴露时使用力量最小。结论 对未使用过视频喉镜的志愿者来说,初次应用3种视频喉镜在模拟困难气道模型气管插管时,与Macintosh喉镜相比,3种视频喉镜能明显改善模拟困难气道下的喉部暴露分级,但会延长插管的时间,对急救是不利的。     

视频喉镜在气管插管术中的临床应用

目的 观察视频喉镜在气管插管术中的临床应用效果.方法 120例成年患者随机均分为三组:A组,用视频喉镜加普通喉镜插管;B组,用视频喉镜插管;C组,用普通喉镜插管.常规诱导,由熟练麻醉医师操作,观察可视声门程度、插管所用时间、插管次数、HR、MAP、SpO2的变化及失败例次.结果 可视声门程度、插管所用时间A组与B、C组比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).插管次数各组间差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).HR、MAP、SpO2三组间及每组插管时、插管后与诱导前比较差异无统计学意义.结论 用视频喉镜加普通喉镜插管,比单用视频喉镜或单用普通喉镜插管,能提高声门可视程度,缩短插管所用时间,减少插管次数,降低插管失败比例.     

视频喉镜在垂体瘤患者气管插管中的应用

目的探讨视频喉镜在垂体瘤患者气管插管中的应用。方法选择择期行全麻垂体瘤手术患者51例,男19例,女32例,年龄18~71岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。随机将患者分为Macintosh喉镜组(M组,n=25)和视频喉镜组(VL组,n=26)。M组患者气管插管时使用Macintosh喉镜暴露声门,VL组患者使用电子视频喉镜暴露声门。测量患者颈部后仰度、张口度、甲颏距、颈围、下颌支长度、改良Mallampati分级及面罩通气难易程度。记录暴露声门时按压环状软骨的比例、Cormack-Lehane分级、二次插管的比例和插管时间。结果VL组按压环状软骨的比例(7.7%vs48.0%)及Cormack-Lehane分级明显低于M组(P0.01),插管时间明显短于M组[(32.4±11.7)s vs(45.8±12.6)s](P0.01)。结论视频喉镜用于垂体瘤患者气管插管,可显著改善声门暴露,提高插管成功率并缩短插管时间。     

Glidescope视频喉镜辅助纤维支气管镜用于老年患者经口气管插管的效果

目的 评价Glidescope视频喉镜辅助纤维支气管镜(FOB)用于老年患者经口气管插管的效果.方法 择期行腹部手术的老年患者40例,年龄65～77岁,体重43 ～ 82 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ级或Ⅱ级,Mallampatis分级l或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为2组(n=20):FOB组和Glide -scope组.麻醉诱导后,行气管插管.记录气管插管时间、气管插管成功情况;记录气管插管期间低氧血症的发生情况、Glidescope视频喉镜对声门及会厌的显露情况.结果 与FOB组比较,Glidescope组气管插管时间缩短,1次插管成功率升高(P＜0.05).Glidescope视频喉镜显露声门或显露部分声门15例(75％),仅显露会厌或部分会厌5例(25％).两组气管插管期间均未见低氧血症发生.结论 Glideseope视频喉镜辅助FOB引导经口气管插管时可缩短插管时间,提高首次插管成功概率,可安全有效地用于老年患者.     

TruviewEV02喉镜与Macintosh喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管的对比研究

目的评价Truview EVO,喉镜与Macintosh喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管的临床应用情况。方法择期颈椎活动受限经口气管插管全麻手术49例,静脉麻醉诱导后,随机先后使用TruviewEVO2喉镜与Macintosh喉镜显露喉部,并采用喉部暴露条件好的喉镜行气管插管。比较2种喉镜Cormack．Lehane（C-L）分级,喉部结构显露时间和声门显露时血流动力学改变。结果TruviewEVO,喉镜组c-L分级显著优于Macintosh喉镜组（Z=-5．488,P=0．000）,喉部结构显露时间明显长于Macintosh喉镜组[（15．9±6．7）Svs．（12．3±4．5）S,t=4．304,P=0．000]。2种喉镜声门显露时HR、SBP、MAP变化无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论TruviewEVO,喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管效果明显优于Macintosh喉镜,可提高气管插管成功率,对于部分困难气道患者具有较好的应用价值。     

Validation of the glidescope video laryngoscope in pediatric patients

Background:  GlideScope laryngoscopy provides a glottic view equal or superior compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Data evaluating GlideScope laryngoscopy in pediatric patients are lacking. This study compared intubation times of GlideScope laryngoscopy vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in pediatric patients.
Methods:  Sixty ASA I–III patients, aged 10 years or less, were included in this study. Prior to intubation, airway characteristics were measured, and all patients were given an airway class by a separate anesthesiologist using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Patients were then randomly assigned for endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or the GlideScope, and intubation time was measured. All blades were investigated for blood traces as a surrogate of laryngeal injury.
Results:  Demographic data and airway characteristics were not statistically significant different between groups. GlideScope intubation time (14 ± 5 s) was not different from Macintosh intubation time (13 ± 5 s). Blood traces were not observed on Macintosh or GlideScope blades.
Conclusion:  The GlideScope video laryngoscope is equally suitable to facilitate orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to intubation time and laryngeal trauma.     

Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes

BACKGROUND: The Airtraq laryngoscope is designed to allow visualization of the glottis without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axes. We hypothesized that this new airway device would facilitate tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients. We compared tracheal intubation performance of standard Macintosh laryngoscope with the Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. METHODS: One hundred and six consecutive ASA I-III morbidly obese patients undergoing surgery were randomized to intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope or the Airtraq laryngoscope. Induction of anaesthesia was standardized. If tracheal intubation failed within 120 s with the Macintosh or Airtraq , laryngoscopes were switched. Success rate, SpO2, duration of tracheal intubation, and quality of airway management were evaluated and compared between the groups. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. In the Airtraq group, tracheal intubation was successfully carried out in all patients within 120 s. In the Macintosh laryngoscope group, six patients required intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope. The mean (SD) time taken for tracheal intubation was 24 (16) and 56 (23) s, respectively, with the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes, (P<0.001). SpO2 was better maintained in the Airtraq group than in the Macintosh laryngoscope group with one and nine patients, respectively, demonstrating drops of SpO2 to 92% or less (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Airtraq laryngoscope shortened the duration of tracheal intubation and prevented reductions in arterial oxygen saturation in morbidly obese patients.     

Video RIFL: a rigid flexible laryngoscope to facilitate airway management

The video RIFL (rigid flexible laryngoscope) is an airway management adjunct designed to facilitate endotracheal intubation. It is a novel stylet-based laryngoscope that incorporates a complementary metal oxide sensor distal chip imaging system and real-time articulation tip. The device combines features desired in fiberoptic bronchoscopy as well as in video laryngoscopy. Four cases involving its use in difficult airway management are presented.     

Determination of the utility of the Intubation Difficulty Scale for use with indirect laryngoscopes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Intubation Difficulty Scale is meaningful when used with indirect laryngoscopes. Data were analysed from previously published clinical trials from our group that compared the indirect laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope. For each laryngoscope type, the Intubation Difficulty Scale score obtained for each tracheal intubation was correlated with data for duration of the intubation attempt and with the user rated difficulty of the intubation attempt. The strengths of the correlations between these indices were then compared for tracheas intubated with the Macintosh vs the indirect laryngoscopes. The Intubation Difficulty Scale performed well when compared with data for duration and user rated difficulty of the intubation attempts for the both direct and indirect laryngoscopy. However, the correlation between the Intubation Difficulty Scale score and both user rated difficulty (p = 0.001) and the duration of tracheal intubation (p = 0.003) were significantly stronger for the Macintosh laryngoscope compared with the indirect laryngoscopes. In contrast, the correlation between user rated difficulty scores and the data for duration of tracheal intubation was not different between the device types. The Intubation Difficulty Scale performs less well with indirect laryngoscopes than with the Macintosh laryngoscope. These findings suggest the need for caution with the use of this score with indirect laryngoscopes.     

The GlideScope Ranger® video laryngoscope can be useful in airway management of entrapped patients

Background: Airway management of entrapped patients is challenging and alternatives to endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope must be considered. In this study, the GlideScope Ranger^® video laryngoscope has been evaluated as an alternative to standard laryngoscopy.
Methods: Eight anaesthesiologists from a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service intubated the trachea of a Laerdal SimMan^® manikin using the studied laryngoscopes in two scenarios: (A) unrestricted access to the manikin in an ambulance and (B) no access from the head end, simulating an entrapped patient. The time used to secure the airway and the scored level of difficulty were the main variables.
Results: In scenario A, all anaesthesiologists managed to secure the airway using both techniques within the 60-s time limit. In scenario B, all secured the airway when using the video laryngoscope, while 50% succeeded with endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The difference in the success rate was statististically significant ( P =0.025). There were no significant differences in the time spent on endotracheal intubation in the two scenarios or between the devices. All stated that the availability of a video laryngsoscope would make drug-facilitated intubation a realistic alternative when access to patients is limited. The lack of visual control when using the Macintosh laryngoscope excludes this technique in real-life settings.
Conclusion: This study suggests that the Glidescope Ranger^® may be merited in situations requiring endotracheal intubation by an experienced intubator in patient entrapment. Further studies are required to clarify whether performance in patients mimics that in a manikin.     

Prospective model-based comparison of different laryngoscopes for difficult intubation in infants

Background: Difficult intubation in infants is uncommon but may be a challenge for the anesthesiologist. Many optical‐assisted techniques are available to ease endotracheal placement of tube but have not been systemically evaluated for pediatric practice. Aim: The study was performed to compare conventional pediatric Macintosh – with different optical laryngoscopes in difficult endotracheal intubation in infants. We hypothesized that inexperienced anesthetists would perform more successful with optical devices and that differences between the devices would be found. Methods/Materials: In this randomized controlled study, 30 anesthesia residents performed endotracheal intubation in an infant model of difficult airway presenting with airway obstruction and neck immobilization. Primary endpoints were intubation success rate and intubation time. Beyond that glottis view, dental trauma and difficulty of technique were evaluated and measured by a study observer. Macintosh, Airtraq^®, Storz DCI^®‐, and Gyrus Infant Bullard^® laryngoscopes were used in random order. After standardized briefing every resident had three attempts of at most 120 s with every device to place a 3‐mm tube into the trachea. Glottis view and difficulty of technique were rated by the residents using classification of Cormack/Lehane and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0 = easy to 10 = very difficult). Results: Success rate was 41% with conventional Macintosh, 43% with Airtraq^®, 62% with Storz DCI^®, and 100% with Bullard^® laryngoscopes. Median time from passing the lips to first ventilation was 67 s (Storz DCI^® laryngoscope), 54 s (Macintosh laryngoscope), 45 s (Airtraq^® laryngoscope), and 21 s (Bullard^® laryngoscope), respectively. Dental trauma did not occur with Bullard^® laryngoscope and was frequent with Storz DCI^® laryngoscope (39%) and Macintosh laryngoscope (42%). Glottis view was best with Bullard^® laryngoscope (Grade 1 in 100%) and worst with Macintosh laryngoscope (Grade 1 in 2%). Difficulty of technique was rated with a VAS score of 2 (Bullard^® laryngoscope), 4.5 (Storz DCI^® laryngoscope) and 6 (Airtraq^®‐ and Macintosh laryngoscopes). Conclusions: Inexperienced anesthetists have higher success rates and shorter intubation times with optical‐assisted laryngoscopes compared with conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Gyrus Infant Bullard^® laryngoscope significantly undertakes best success rate and shortest intubation time with mildest impact to maxillary dents and easiest technique. Our findings support the hypothesis that optical laryngoscopes can be used successfully by inexperienced anesthetists in simulated difficult pediatric airway conditions.     

A new method for endotracheal intubation with the Bullard laryngoscope]

The Bullard laryngoscope is an anatomically shaped rigid fiber optic instrument designed for indirect laryngoscopy and intubation. It requires no neck extension nor flexion to perform laryngeal intubation. This characteristic is especially useful in the case of difficult airway. The Bullard laryngoscope, however, with which it is easy to visualize the cords, has not been popular yet, because using the intubating forceps mechanism requires a certain amount of skill. The intubation method developed by us with Bullard laryngoscope has been tried on 26 patients with difficult airway and ten patients with normal airway. An endotracheal tube is inserted through nostril, and intubation is performed viewing the tube and larynx during all the processes of intubation. Three kinds of endotracheal tubes, i.e. Magill type plain tubes, styletted tubes, and directional tip tubes, are compared. The method using a directional tip tube (Endotrol) is concluded as the best among them. The Endotrol tube itself has such a suitable shape for nasal intubation that it can be introduced to the larynx with little directional change. Therefore, our method is mastered with a shorter training period than the intubation method with fiber-optic laryngoscopes. In conclusion, our intubation method with the Bullard laryngoscopes using the directional tip tubes (Endotrol) is useful for patients with difficult airways, and is also nontraumatic and easy to perform.     

A comparison of the STORZ video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the Pediatric airway – a randomized clinical trial

Introduction:  Direct laryngoscopy can be challenging in infants and neonates. Even with an optimal line of sight to the glottic opening, the viewing angle has been measured at 15°. The STORZ DCI video laryngoscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) incorporates a fiberoptic camera in the light source of a standard laryngoscope of variable sizes. The image is displayed on a screen with a viewing angle of 80°. We studied the effectiveness of the STORZ DCI as an airway tool compared to standard direct laryngoscopy in children with normal airway.
Methods:  In this prospective, randomized study, 56 children (ages 4 years or younger) undergoing elective surgery with the need for endotracheal intubation were divided into two groups: children who underwent standard direct laryngoscopy using a Miller 1 or Macintosh 2 blade (DL) and children who underwent video laryngoscopy using the STORZ DCI video laryngoscope with a Miller 1 blade (VL). Time to best view (TTBV), time to intubate (TTI), Cormack–Lehane (CL), and percentage of glottis opening seen (POGO) score were recorded.
Results:  TTBV in DL was 5.5 (4–8) s and 7 (4.2–9) s in VL. TTI in DL was 21 (17–29) s and in VL 27 (22–37) s ( P  = 0.006). The view as assessed by POGO score was 97.5% (60–100%) in DL and 100% (100–100%) in the VL ( P  = 0.003). Data are presented as median and interquartile range and analyzed using t -test.
Discussion:  This study demonstrates that the STORZ DCI video laryngoscope provides an improved view to the glottis in children with normal airway anatomy, but requires a longer time for intubation.     

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.