Dataset Information

Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:We aim to investigate intubation conditions, intubation times, and hemodynamic response with the GlideScope video laryngoscope or the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children older than one year. Methods:Eighty patients aged 1-12 years, scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included in a prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. Exclusion criteria were risk of pulmonary aspiration, craniofacial malformation, difficult intubation, emergency surgery, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and hemodynamic instability. After standard anesthesia induction, patients were randomized into two groups. The group G patients (n=40) were intubated with the GlideScope and the group M patients (n=40) were intubated with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Intubation time, number of attempts, Cormack-Lehane score, airway maneuvers, and visual analog score were recorded. Hemodynamic variables were recorded before and after anesthesia induction, at intubation, and 1., 3., and 5. minutes after intubation. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the ?2 test were used for statistical analysis, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results:The demographic data, operation time and hemodynamic parameters were similar between the two groups. The intubation time was longer in Group G than Group M. The incidence of Cormack-Lehane score 1 was higher in Group G than Group M while Cormack-Lehane score 2 was higher in Group M. Conclusion:We concluded that the GlideScope video laryngoscope provided better glottis visualization, but prolonged intubation time. There was no superiorty on hemodynamic effect with the video laryngoscope.

SUBMITTER: K?l?nc L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7199836 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.

Kılınç Leyla L Çınar Ayşe Surhan AS

Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni 20190624 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>We aim to investigate intubation conditions, intubation times, and hemodynamic response with the GlideScope video laryngoscope or the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children older than one year.<h4>Methods</h4>Eighty patients aged 1-12 years, scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included in a prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. Exclusion criteria were risk of pulmonary aspiratio ...[more]

PMID: 32377073

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objectives: Difficult intubation, which may be encountered unexpectedly during anesthesia, can increase patients' morbidity and mortality. The McGRATH video laryngoscope is known to provide improved laryngeal visibility in patients with difficult or normal airways. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the McGRATH video laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation compared with that of conventional Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airway scenarios. Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, patients who were scheduled for surgery under general anesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation were assigned to the Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 50) or McGRATH video laryngoscope (n = 45) groups. In this study, to create a simulated difficult airway condition, the subjects performed manual in-line stabilization and applied a soft cervical collar. The primary outcome was the rate of successful intubation within 30 s. The time required for an intubation, glottis grade, intubation difficulty scale (IDS score), the subjective ease of intubation, and optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OLEM) were evaluated. In addition, complications caused by each blade were investigated. Results: The intubation success rate within 30 s was not significantly different between the two groups (44 (88.0%) vs. 36 (80.0%), p = 0.286). The glottic grade was better in the McGRATH group than in the Macintosh group (p = 0.029), but neither the intubation time (26.3 ± 8.2 s vs. 24.2 ± 5.0 s, p = 0.134) nor the rates of oral bleeding (2 (4.0%) vs. 0 (0.0%)) and tooth injury (0 (0.0%) vs. 1 (2.2%)) were significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: The use of the McGRATH video laryngoscope did not improve the intubation success rate or shorten the intubation time. However, the McGRATH video laryngoscope provided a better glottis view than the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a simulated difficult airway.

Project description:A variety of instruments are used to perform airway management by tracheal intubation. In this study, we compared the MacIntosh balde (MB) laryngoscope with the Bonfils intubation fibrescope as intubation techniques. The aim of this study was to identify the technique (MB or Bonfils) that would allow students in their last year of medical school to perform tracheal intubation faster and with a higher success probability. Data were collected from 150 participants using an airway simulator ['Laerdal Airway Management Trainer' (Laerdal Medical AS, Stavanger, Norway)]. The participants were randomly assigned to a sequence of techniques to use. Four consecutive intubation 'trials' were performed with each technique. These trials were evaluated for differences in the following categories: the 'time to successful ventilation', 'success probability' within 90 s,'time to visualisation' of the vocal cords (glottis), and 'quality of visualisation' according to the Cormack and Lehane score (C&L, grade 1-4). The primary endpoint was the 'time to successful ventilation'in the fourth and final trial.There was no statistically significant difference in the 'time to successful ventilation' between the two techniques in trial 4 ('time to successful ventilation': median: MB: 16 s, Bonfils: 14 s, p = 0.244). However, the 'success probability' within 90 s was higher when using a Macintosh blade than when using a Bonfils (95 vs. 87%). The glottis could be better visualised when using a Bonfils (C&L score of 1 (best view): MB: 41%, Bonfils: 93%), but visualisation was achieved more rapidly when using a Macintosh blade (median: 'time to visualisation': MB: 6 s, Bonfils: 8 s, p = 0.003).The time to ventilation using the MacIntosh blade and Bonfils mainly did to differ, however success probabilities and time to visualisation primary favoured the MacIntosh blade as intubation technique, although the Bonfils seem to have a steeper learning curve. The Bonfils is still a promising intubation technique and might be easier to learn as the MB, at least in a manikin.

Project description:BackgroundIt is presently unclear whether the hemodynamic response to intubation is less marked with indirect laryngoscopy using the GlideScope (GlideScope) than with direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether using the GlideScope lowers the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation more than using the Macintosh laryngoscope.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search of electronic databases for clinical trials comparing hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. The primary aim was to determine whether the heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP) 60 s after tracheal intubation with the GlideScope were lower than after intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope. We expressed pooled differences in HR and MBP between the devices as the weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and also performed trial sequential analysis (TSA). Second, we examined whether use of the GlideScope resulted in lower post-intubation hemodynamic responses at 120, 180, and 300 s compared with use of the Macintosh laryngoscope. For sensitivity analysis, we used a multivariate random effects model that accounted for within-study correlation of the longitudinal data.ResultsThe literature search identified 13 articles. HR and MBP at 60 seconds post-intubation was not significantly lower with the GlideScope than with the Macintosh (HR vs MBP: weighted mean difference = 0.22 vs 2.56; 95% confidence interval -3.43 to 3.88 vs -0.82 to 5.93; P = .90 vs 0.14; I = 77% vs 63%: Cochran Q, 52.7 vs 27.2). Use of the GlideScope was not associated with a significantly lower HR or MBP at 120, 180, or 300 s post-intubation. TSA indicated that the total sample size was over the futility boundary for HR and MBP. Sensitivity analysis indicated no significant association between use of the GlideScope and a lower HR or MBP at any measurement point.ConclusionsCompared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope did not lower the hemodynamic response after tracheal intubation. Sensitivity analysis results supported this finding, and the results of TSA suggest that the total sample size exceeded the TSA monitoring boundary for HR and MBP.

Project description:UnlabelledThe aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the TruView video laryngoscope (TruView) facilitates pediatric endotracheal intubation (ETI) more quickly and safely than conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in three manikin-based airway scenarios. This was a randomized crossover manikin study including 120 novice paramedics. The participants performed tracheal intubations using both TruView and MAC on a pediatric manikin in a control scenario (A), chest compression scenario (B), and chest compression cervical stabilization scenario (C). The sequence of scenarios was randomized. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes were overall success rates, incidence of dental trauma, and ease of intubation. All intubation attempts were assessed by a trained assistant. The overall success rate was significantly higher with the TruView compared than the MAC in scenario B (100 vs. 81.7 %; p = 0.011) and scenario C (100 vs. 68.3 %; p < 0.001). The intubation time was significantly lower with the TruView than the MAC (18.5 vs. 24.3 s, p = 0.017, for scenario A; 21.6 vs. 25.7 s, p = 0.023, for scenario B; and 28.9 vs. 45.4 s, p < 0.001, for scenario C). Glottic view quality was better with TruView than the MAC in all scenarios, p < 0.001.ConclusionsThe TruView offers better intubation conditions than the MAC on a pediatric manikin in the control scenario, chest compression scenario, and chest compression scenario with cervical stabilization scenario. The TruView may be used to elevate the epiglottis for orotracheal intubation. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial positive findings.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02289872.What is known•Prehospital pediatric intubation using a standard laryngoscope is varied and ranges from 63.4 to 82 %. What is New: •This is the first study showing efficiency of pediatric endotracheal intubation using the TruView PCD by paramedics in tree simulation scenarios. •TruView PCD offers better pediatric intubation conditions than the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.

Publications

Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets