WITHDRAWN: A randomized trial to compare the Truview picture capture device, C-MAC laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric airway management.

Ranju Singh, Nishant Kumar, Aruna Jain
{"title":"WITHDRAWN: A randomized trial to compare the Truview picture capture device, C-MAC laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric airway management.","authors":"Ranju Singh, Nishant Kumar, Aruna Jain","doi":"10.1016/j.aat.2015.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate and compare the Truview picture capture device (PCD) and C-MAC laryngoscope to the standard Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred and fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiology status Grade I-II (ASA I-II) who were 1-6 years old (10-20 kg) were scheduled for elective surgery. They were randomized into three equal groups for laryngoscopy and intubation by either the Truview PCD (Group T), C-MAC (Group C), or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group M) under general anesthesia. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, application of external laryngeal maneuver, time to intubation, number of attempts at intubation, failed intubations, episodes of desaturation, and trauma were recorded and statistically analyzed. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The POGO scores were significantly better with the Truview PCD (94.7 ± 12.91) than with the C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes (82 ± 24.97 and 85.1 ± 17.07, respectively; p < 0.01). There were no failures, episodes of desaturation, or trauma in any of the patients. It took 19.24 seconds to intubate with the Truview PCD, compared to 12.32 seconds with the C-MAC laryngoscope and 10.7 seconds with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.01). An external laryngeal maneuver was required in 42% of patients in group C, compared to 38% in Group M and 16% in group T (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Truview PCD offers the best laryngeal view, although it takes a longer time for intubation. The C-MAC laryngoscope provides similar laryngeal views as the Macintosh blade, and is an excellent teaching aid.</p>","PeriodicalId":87042,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aat.2015.01.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the Truview picture capture device (PCD) and C-MAC laryngoscope to the standard Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric patients.

Methods: One hundred and fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiology status Grade I-II (ASA I-II) who were 1-6 years old (10-20 kg) were scheduled for elective surgery. They were randomized into three equal groups for laryngoscopy and intubation by either the Truview PCD (Group T), C-MAC (Group C), or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group M) under general anesthesia. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, application of external laryngeal maneuver, time to intubation, number of attempts at intubation, failed intubations, episodes of desaturation, and trauma were recorded and statistically analyzed. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The POGO scores were significantly better with the Truview PCD (94.7 ± 12.91) than with the C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes (82 ± 24.97 and 85.1 ± 17.07, respectively; p < 0.01). There were no failures, episodes of desaturation, or trauma in any of the patients. It took 19.24 seconds to intubate with the Truview PCD, compared to 12.32 seconds with the C-MAC laryngoscope and 10.7 seconds with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.01). An external laryngeal maneuver was required in 42% of patients in group C, compared to 38% in Group M and 16% in group T (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: The Truview PCD offers the best laryngeal view, although it takes a longer time for intubation. The C-MAC laryngoscope provides similar laryngeal views as the Macintosh blade, and is an excellent teaching aid.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
撤回: 一项随机试验,比较 Truview 图像捕捉装置、C-MAC 喉镜和 Macintosh 喉镜在儿科气道管理中的应用。
目的:评估并比较 Truview 图像捕捉装置(PCD)和 C-MAC 喉镜与标准 Macintosh 喉镜在儿科患者中的应用:150 名美国麻醉学会状态 I-II 级(ASA I-II)的 1-6 岁(10-20 公斤)患者被安排接受择期手术。他们被随机分为三组,分别在全身麻醉下使用 Truview PCD(T 组)、C-MAC(C 组)或 Macintosh 喉镜(M 组)进行喉镜检查和插管。记录并统计分析了声门开放百分比(POGO)评分、喉外操作的应用、插管时间、插管尝试次数、插管失败、不饱和发作和创伤。结果Truview PCD 的 POGO 评分(94.7 ± 12.91)明显优于 C-MAC 和 Macintosh 喉镜(分别为 82 ± 24.97 和 85.1 ± 17.07;p 结论:Truview PCD 的喉部视野最佳,但插管时间较长。C-MAC 喉镜提供的喉部视野与 Macintosh 刀片相似,是一种出色的教学辅助工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on complications after gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis Quadratus lumborum block intramuscular approach for pediatric surgery Reply to: Respiratory acidosis in obese gynecologic patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery independently of the type of ventilation Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynecological laparoscopy: A comparison of standard anesthetic technique and propofol infusion Severe acute peripheral edema induced by noninvasive blood pressure cuff in an elderly patient with hypoalbuminemia under general anesthesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1