GlideScope喉镜与Macintosh喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术效果的比较

目的 比较GlideScope喉镜与Macintosh喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术的效果.方法 选择胸科手术单肺通气的患者70例,ASA分级Ⅰ～Ⅲ级,年龄18 ～ 75岁,性别不限.采用随机数字表法,将患者分为2组(n=35)∶GlideScope喉镜组(G组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组).麻醉诱导后,按照Cormack-Lehane分级评估Macintosh喉镜暴露声门程度.采用Macintosh喉镜(M组)和GlideScope喉镜(G组)辅助双腔气管导管插管术.记录Macintosh喉镜和GlideScope喉镜下Cormack-Lehane分级以及置入双腔气管导管的难易程度和双腔气管导管反向置管的发生情况;记录气管插管成功情况和气管插管时间.于气管插管前、气管插管后即刻和气管插管后3 min记录血压及心率.记录术后相关不良反应的发生情况.结果 与M组比较,G组气管插管时间延长,双腔气管导管置管困难程度升高,气管插管后即刻和气管插管后3 min血压升高(P＜0.05),首次气管插管成功率、双腔气管导管反向置管率、Comark-Lehene分级和各时点心率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);G组GlideScope喉镜下Cormack-Lehane分级优于Macintosh喉镜(P＜0.05).结论 与Macintosh喉镜相比,GlideScope喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术时能更好地暴露声门,改善气管插管条件,但方法较复杂,且插管反应较强.     

Airtraq可视喉镜与Macintosh喉镜用于双腔支气管插管的临床研究

目的 比较Airtraq可视喉镜和Macintosh喉镜用于双腔支气管插管的临床效果.方法 选择需行单肺通气的胸外科手术患者60例,随机均分为两组.A组使用Airtraq可视喉镜而M组使用Macintosh直接喉镜行双腔支气管插管.比较两组插管时间、Cormack/Lehane分级、插管难易度评分(IDS评分)、进入目标支气管的成功率、口腔损伤出血情况(唇、齿、舌及口腔黏膜).结果 A组MallampatiⅢ级患者的插管时间明显短于M组(P＜0.05);Cormack/Lehane分级及IDS评分明显优于M组(P＜0.05);IDS评分≥1分患者A组明显少于M组(P＜0.05).结论 与Macintosh喉镜相比,MallampatiⅢ级患者使用Airtraq可视喉镜插管速度更快,Airtraq可视喉镜下声门显露更佳,且插管难度更低.     

Airtraq联合弹性探条用于困难双腔支气管插管一例

Airtraq可视喉镜是一种新型气管插管工具,无需口、咽、气管三轴线的重合即可改善声门Cormack-Lehane (C-L)分级,可用于常规或困难气管插管.以往的研究多集中于单腔气管插管时的普通或困难气道,但在未预料到的双腔支气管导管(DLT)插管困难方面报道不多.本文报道1例未预计的困难气道使用传统的Macintosh喉镜DLT插管失败改用Airtraq联合弹性探条(gum elastic bougie,GEB)后成功的病例.     

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.     

经Airtraq喉镜使用钢丝加强型导管和普通气管导管的比较

目的 观察Airtraq喉镜使用钢丝加强型导管和普通气管导管进行气管插管的临床效果.方法 90例行择期整形外科手术的需气管插管的全麻患者,随机分为钢丝加强型导管组(A组)和普通导管组(B组),每组45例.常规静脉快速诱导后,用Airtraq喉镜分别携带钢丝加强型导管或普通气管导管行气管插管.观察两组患者的插管时间、插管成功率、插管期间的血流动力学变化以及术后并发症的发生情况.结果 所有患者全部用Airtraq喉镜完成气管插管,B组一次插管成功率(91.1%)低于A组(95.6%)(P＜0.05);B组插管时间[(35.4±16.6)s]显著长于A组[(26.8士9.0)s](P＜0.05),两组血流动力学变化及术后并发症的发生情况差异无统计学意义.结论 Airtraq喉镜能够安全有效地应用于全麻患者的气管插管,使用钢丝加强型导管可以进一步提高插管成功率,缩短插管时间.     

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。     

新型Airtraq喉镜（氧瞬得）在困难气管插管中的应用

目的：观察Airtraq喉镜在困难气道插管中的临床应用。方法将60例困难气管插管患者作为研究对象,观察使用Airtraq喉镜插管过程中患者声门显露率、气管插管总成功率和一次插管成功率、插管操作时间、插管操作相关并发症等。结果Airtraq喉镜组患者声门显露均为Ⅰ级,气管插管均一次成功（100％）,插管过程中患者心率和血压稳定,未出现声音嘶哑、牙齿损伤或松动的病例,插管后出现口腔粘膜出血1例,术后咽喉痛1例,分别占总例数的3．3％。结论Airtraq喉镜对麻醉中困难气管插管理及临床抢救插管有较高的应用价值。     

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.     

Discoscope内窥镜与GlideScope可视喉镜用于声门显露困难患者气管插管效果的比较

目的 比较Discoscope内窥镜与GlideScope可视喉镜用于声门显露困难患者气管插管的效果.方法 择期行经口气管插管的全麻患者40例,Macintosh喉镜显露Cormach-Lehane分级Ⅲ或Ⅳ级,性别不限,年龄24 ～ 78岁,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为2组(n=20):GlideScope可视喉镜组(G组)和Discoscope内窥镜组(D组).记录声门显露情况、声门显露时间、气管插管情况、声门显露后至气管导管置入时间和气管插管时间.术后随访患者,记录咽喉出血和咽喉疼痛的发生情况.结果 与G组比较,D组声门显露时间延长,环状软骨按压率降低,声门显露至气管导管置入时间缩短,1次气管插管成功率升高(P＜0.05),1次声门显露成功率、2次声门显露成功率、2次气管插管成功率、气管插管时间、咽喉出血发生率和咽喉疼痛发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 与GlideScope可视喉镜比较,Discoscope内窥镜用于声门显露困难患者有助于声门的显露,且可提高气管插管的成功机率.     

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。     

Nasotracheal intubation using the Airtraq versus Macintosh laryngoscope: a manikin study

The Airtraq laryngoscope is a new intubation device that provides a non-line-of-sight view of the glottis. We evaluated this device by comparing the ease of nasotracheal intubation on a manikin with the use of Airtraq versus the Macintosh laryngoscope with and without Magill forceps. Nasotracheal intubation on a manikin was performed by 20 anesthesiologists and 20 residents with the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope. The mean (+/- SD) time required for nasotracheal intubation by the residents was significantly shorter with the Airtraq laryngoscope than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (16 +/- 7 sec vs 22 +/- 10 sec; P < .001), but no difference in intubation time was observed between Airtraq (15 +/- 11 sec) and Macintosh (13 +/- 6 sec) laryngoscopy by the anesthesiologists. The Magill forceps was used more frequently to facilitate intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the Airtraq laryngoscope in both groups of operators 7(P < .001). The Airtraq laryngoscope scored better on the visual analog scale than did the Macintosh laryngoscope in both groups of operators (P < .05). The Airtraq laryngoscope offers potential advantages over standard direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.     

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.     

Comparison of Macintosh and Airtraq(TM) laryngoscopes in obese patients placed in the ramped position

This study compared intubation conditions produced by the Macintosh and Airtraq^TM laryngoscopes when used in obese patients in the ramped position. One hundred and thirty‐two patients having bariatric surgery were placed in the ramped position and randomly assigned to have their tracheas intubated using either the Macintosh (n = 64) or an Airtraq (n = 68) laryngoscope. Mean (SD) intubation times were 37 (23) s and 14 (3) s for Macintosh and Airtraq, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the Airtraq laryngoscope provided an improved vocal cord view as assessed by the Cormack and Lehane score (number of patients with Cormack‐Lehane scores of 1/2/3/4/37/20/4/3 for the Macintosh, and 65/3/0/0 for the Airtraq laryngoscopes, p < 0.0001). One patient in the Macintosh group had a failed intubation and intubation was achieved with the Airtraq. For obese patients in ramped position, Airtraq affords faster tracheal intubation than the Macintosh laryngoscope.     

Easy and difficult nasal intubation--a randomised comparison of Macintosh vs Airtraq® laryngoscopes

A new Airtraq^® laryngoscope has been developed for nasal intubation. We prospectively compared tracheal intubation efficiency of the Airtraq for nasotracheal intubation vs that of the Macintosh laryngoscope in 200 patients. Depending on pre‐operative airway evaluation, the patients were allocated to expected easy (n = 100) or difficult (n = 100) intubation groups, on the basis of mouth opening ≤ 2.5 cm, modified Mallampati score of 4, history of difficult intubation, obvious tumour or swelling. Patients were randomly allocated to the Macintosh or nasotracheal Airtraq technique. All easy intubations were successfully performed with the respective technique. In the expected difficult intubation group, the success rate was higher (47/50 vs 33/50; p < 0.01), the glottis view was better (Cormack and Lehane 1/2/3/4 grades: 29/17/1/3 vs 5/11/18/16, p < 0.01), mean (SD) intubation time was shorter (45(46) s vs 77(47)s, p < 0.01) and the number of optimising manoeuvres was reduced with the nasotracheal Airtraq compared with the Macintosh, respectively. For difficult nasal intubations, the nasotracheal Airtraq is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope.     

A comparison of tracheal intubation using the Airtraq or the Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomised, controlled clinical trial

The Airtraq laryngoscope is a novel single use tracheal intubation device. We compared the Airtraq with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients deemed at low risk for difficult intubation in a randomised, controlled clinical trial. Sixty consenting patients presenting for surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly allocated to undergo intubation using a Macintosh (n = 30) or Airtraq (n = 30) laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by one of four anaesthetists experienced in the use of both laryngoscopes. No significant differences in demographic or airway variables were observed between the groups. All but one patient, in the Macintosh group, was successfully intubated on the first attempt. There was no difference between groups in the duration of intubation attempts. In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, the Airtraq resulted in modest improvements in the intubation difficulty score, and in ease of use. Tracheal intubation with the Airtraq resulted in less alterations in heart rate. These findings demonstrate the utility of the Airtraq laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in low risk patients.     

Evaluation of the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation

The Airtraq, a novel single use indirect laryngoscope, has demonstrated promise in the normal and simulated difficult airway. We compared the ease of intubation using the Airtraq with the Macintosh laryngoscope, in patients at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation, in a randomised, controlled clinical trial. Forty consenting patients presenting for surgery requiring tracheal intubation, who were deemed to possess at least three characteristics indicating an increased risk for difficulty in tracheal intubation, were randomly assigned to undergo tracheal intubation using a Macintosh (n = 20) or Airtraq (n = 20) laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by one of three anaesthetists experienced in the use of both laryngoscopes. Four patients were not successfully intubated with the Macintosh laryngoscope, but were intubated successfully with the Airtraq. The Airtraq reduced the duration of intubation attempts (mean (SD); 13.4 (6.3) vs 47.7 (8.5) s), the need for additional manoeuvres, and the intubation difficulty score (0.4 (0.8) vs 7.7 (3.0)). Tracheal intubation with the Airtraq also reduced the degree of haemodynamic stimulation and minor trauma compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope.     

A comparison of the McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for double‐lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a good glottic view at direct laryngoscopy

We compared the McGrath^® Series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for double‐lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a predicted good glottic view on assessment of the airway. An initial laryngoscopy was performed using the Macintosh laryngoscope; 96 patients with Cormack and Lehane grade‐1 or ‐2a views were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using either the McGrath or Macintosh device. Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the McGrath videolaryngoscope provided more Cormack and Lehane grade‐1 views (47 (97.9%) vs 29 (60.4%), p < 0.05), a longer mean (SD) intubation time (39.6 (10.0) s vs 24.4 (7.3) s, p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of double‐lumen tube malposition (6 (12.5%) vs 0, p < 0.05). However, in 18 non‐randomised patients with Cormack and Lehane grade ≥ 2b on initial laryngoscopy using the Macintosh, the glottic view was improved on intubation with the McGrath videolaryngoscope, with a total success rate of double‐lumen tube placement of 94.4% and mean (SD) intubation time of 50.0 (18.6) s. We recommend that in patients with a low airway risk index score requiring intubation with a double‐lumen tracheal tube, the Macintosh laryngoscope is used as the first device and the McGrath videolaryngoscope is used only if this provides a poor glottic view.     

A comparison of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy using the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscopes

The Airtraq laryngoscope has an oropharyngeal airway-shaped blade that provides a non-line-of-sight view of the glottis. The configuration of the blade should mean that less movement of the cervical spine is required during laryngeal visualisation. We compared the degree of cervical spine movement in laryngoscopy performed using the Airtraq and conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. In 20 patients requiring general anaesthesia and tracheal intubation, we measured cervical spine movement using radiography in the same patient during consecutive procedures using the two laryngoscopes. Although significant movement of the cervical spine from baseline was noted during all procedures (p < 0.05), cervical spinal extension with the Airtraq was 29% less than that measured during Macintosh laryngoscopy between the occiput and C4, and 44% less at the C3/C4 motion segment (p < 0.05). Anterior deviations of the vertebral bodies from baseline were 32%, 35%, 38% and 40% less at the atlas, C2, C3, and C4 vertebrae, respectively, during Airtraq laryngoscopy than those measured during Macintosh laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). Our study demonstrated that laryngoscopy using the Airtraq laryngoscope involves less movement of the cervical spine compared to conventional procedures using a Macintosh laryngoscope.     

Airtraq optical laryngoscope

BACKGROUND: We described an early experience of Airtraq laryngoscope in 20 patients receiving general anesthesia. METHODS: In all, 2 staff anesthesiologists, 3 anesthesia residents and 10 non-anesthesia residents performed endotracheal intubation with 14 polyvinyl chloride tubes with inside diameter of 7-8 mm, 5 double lumen 37-F tubes and 1 preformed nasotracheal tube. RESULTS: Every endotracheal intubation was achieved at the first trial, and the mean time to secure the airway was 46 +/- 18 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Airtraq laryngoscope is a useful novel device for tracheal intubation.     

Evaluation of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a simulated difficult airway: a randomised,controlled trial

This prospective randomised, controlled trial compares the performance of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes (KingVision^?, Airtraq^?, A.P. Advance^? MAC ) and the standard Macintosh laryngoscope. With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 480 patients were included. A difficult airway was created with a cervical collar, limiting mouth opening and neck movement. Primary outcome was first‐attempt orotracheal intubation success. Overall success, laryngeal view, intubation difficulty scale, handling, intubation times and side‐effects were secondary outcomes. First‐attempt success rates were: KingVision 90% (95% CI 83–94%), Airtraq 82% (74–88%), A.P. Advance MAC 49% (40–58%), Macintosh 44% (35–53%; p < 0.001). The 95% confidence interval of first‐attempt success rate was thus below 90% for all devices, but the KingVision and the Airtraq performed better than the A.P. Advance MAC and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Also, performance was better with the KingVision and the Airtraq in terms of overall success, laryngeal view, intubation difficulty scale and quality of view. Problems with tube advancement were a frequent cause of intubation failure. In summary, the KingVision and the Airtraq performed better than the A.P. Advance MAC and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Success rates of the unchannelled KingVision and Airtraq were similar to those of their channelled versions reported previously, indicating that performance largely depends on blade design rather than the presence of a channel for tube advancement.