Video-enhanced visualization of the larynx and intubation with the Bullard laryngoscope — equipment report

PURPOSE: A simple technical solution is presented to provide video transmission from the tip of a Bullard laryngoscope to a bedside video display, while the operator is still able to look through the viewing ocular of the Bullard laryngoscope during tracheal intubation. EQUIPMENT: This is achieved by insertion of an ultrathin fibreoptic video-endoscopic system into the working channel of the Bullard laryngoscope. Thereby the view from the distal blade tip is transmitted to a bedside monitor, without interfering with the use of the Bullards laryngoscope's original eyepiece. The presented technical solution allows video transmission without considerable additional weight normally associated with attaching video endoscopy cameras, light and camera cables to endoscopic devices. Thus, the Bullard laryngoscope remains lightweight and easy to maneuver. A screw-threaded adapter with a side-port is proposed to prevent displacement of the fibreoptic cable while still allowing application of oxygen. CONCLUSION: Experience and skills with tracheal intubation using the presented video-enhanced Bullard laryngoscope can be achieved in the originally intended way, while the supervisor or attending viewers can follow the tracheal intubation procedure on the video display.     

Epiploic appendagitis and omental infarction: pitfalls and look-alikes

Epiploic appendagitis and omental infarction are benign self-limiting conditions that are more frequent than generally assumed. Both disorders frequently mimic symptoms of an abdominal surgical emergency, often leading to clinical misdiagnosis of appendicitis or diverticulitis. Because a misdiagnosis can result in an unnecessary laparotomy, a correct diagnosis is of great importance. Ultrasound and computed tomography can be used to make a reliable diagnosis. This pictorial essay illustrates the various ultrasonographic and computed tomographic appearances of epiploic appendagitis and omental infarction and focuses on their radiologic differential diagnoses and pitfalls. Received: 22 February 2001/Accepted: 18 April 2001     

Rechtsprechung aktuell

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Should every patient undergo cardiac catheterization after myocardial infarction?

During the past few decades, management of patients with myocardial infarction has dramatically evolved. High-risk patients are now identified by a variety of noninvasive tests, and aggressive use of reperfusion strategies has improved clinical outcomes. Despite the benefits of reperfusion, only a few patients are eligible to receive thrombolytic therapy. Mortality rates among patients excluded from thrombolytic trials (15% to 20%) have been far greater than those eligible for treatment (3% to 10%). Because most deaths occur within the first few days of infarction, interventions designed to reduce mortality should be performed acutely. Immediate catheterization allows identification of high-risk anatomy that may benefit from surgery and allows coronary angioplasty to be performed as a reperfusion strategy (when appropriate). Furthermore, catheterization allows documentation of ejection fraction, vessel patency, number of diseased vessels, and residual stenosis, all of which have been predictive of prognosis. Conversely, frequently repeated noninvasive diagnostic tests are associated with increased cost, are generally performed in low-risk patients, and 60% to 80% of patients with myocardial infarction ultimately require catheterization anyway. It is possible that early catheterization and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty when indicated may effectively risk stratify patients (eliminating the need for noninvasive testing), may reduce morbidity and mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay.     

Role of nuclear cardiology for determining management of patients with stable coronary artery disease

Both radionuclide angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging provide important insights that determine the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. Both nuclear cardiology procedures have clearly demonstrated use in the noninvasvie identification of severe (left main or three-vessel) coronary artery disease and the noninvasive assessment of prognosis and thereby determine which patients should be sent to coronary angiography. Both radionuclide angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging provide prognostic information that is independent of resting left ventricular function and coronary anatomy and thereby influence the decision regarding which patients should be sent to coronary revascularization. This review considers the evidence supporting the uses of these nuclear cardiology procedures and provides suggestions regarding their cost-effective application.