COMPARISON OF THE BONFILS INTUBATION FIBRESCOPE VERSUS C-MAC VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPE.

Ai H Lee, Nadia M Nor, Azarinah Izaham, Nurlia Yahya, Shereen S P Tang, Norsidah A Manap
{"title":"COMPARISON OF THE BONFILS INTUBATION FIBRESCOPE VERSUS C-MAC VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPE.","authors":"Ai H Lee,&nbsp;Nadia M Nor,&nbsp;Azarinah Izaham,&nbsp;Nurlia Yahya,&nbsp;Shereen S P Tang,&nbsp;Norsidah A Manap","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This prospective, randomized, single blind, single operator study was conducted to compare hemodynamic responses when endotracheal intubation was performed using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope versus the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Forty-four ASA I patients aged between 18 and 60 years, scheduled for elective surgery requiring endotracheal intubation were recruited. They were randomized into the Bonfils group or C-MAC group. Hemodynamic changes, laryngeal view, duration of intubation and post intubation complications were evaluated. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were monitored pre and post-induction, pre and post-intubation, and at 1 minute intervals thereafter for 10 minutes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Endotracheal intubation was successful at first attempt in 90.9% in both groups. Heart rate was significantly higher in the Bonfils group (p < 0.05) compared to the C-MAC group and values were sustained throughout the study. There was no difference in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups. Mean time to intubation was significantly longer in the Bonfils group (28.8 vs. 24.7 seconds, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in laryngeal view and post intubation complications between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intubation using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope took longer, and resulted in significantly higher heart rate when compared with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.</p>","PeriodicalId":35975,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Background: This prospective, randomized, single blind, single operator study was conducted to compare hemodynamic responses when endotracheal intubation was performed using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope versus the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.

Method: Forty-four ASA I patients aged between 18 and 60 years, scheduled for elective surgery requiring endotracheal intubation were recruited. They were randomized into the Bonfils group or C-MAC group. Hemodynamic changes, laryngeal view, duration of intubation and post intubation complications were evaluated. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were monitored pre and post-induction, pre and post-intubation, and at 1 minute intervals thereafter for 10 minutes.

Results: Endotracheal intubation was successful at first attempt in 90.9% in both groups. Heart rate was significantly higher in the Bonfils group (p < 0.05) compared to the C-MAC group and values were sustained throughout the study. There was no difference in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two groups. Mean time to intubation was significantly longer in the Bonfils group (28.8 vs. 24.7 seconds, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in laryngeal view and post intubation complications between the groups.

Conclusion: Intubation using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope took longer, and resulted in significantly higher heart rate when compared with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
bonfils插管纤维镜与c-mac视频喉镜的比较。
背景:这项前瞻性、随机、单盲、单操作人员的研究是为了比较使用Bonfils插管纤维镜和C-MAC视频喉镜进行气管插管时的血流动力学反应。方法:招募44例ASA I型患者,年龄在18 ~ 60岁之间,计划择期手术需要气管插管。随机分为Bonfils组和C-MAC组。评估血流动力学变化、喉部观察、插管时间和插管后并发症。监测诱导前后、插管前后的平均动脉压、心率和血氧饱和度,此后每隔1分钟监测一次,持续10分钟。结果:两组患者气管插管首次成功率均为90.9%。与C-MAC组相比,Bonfils组的心率显著升高(p < 0.05),且该数值在整个研究过程中保持不变。两组平均动脉压(MAP)无差异。Bonfils组平均插管时间明显更长(28.8 vs. 24.7秒,p = 0.02)。两组间喉部视点及插管后并发症无显著差异。结论:与C-MAC视频喉镜插管相比,Bonfils插管纤维镜插管时间更长,心率明显提高。
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
Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology
Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The journal is published three times a year (February, June, and October) and has an Editorial Executive Committee from the department and consultant editors from various Arab countries. A volume consists of six issues. Presently, it is in its 42nd year of publication and is currently in its 19th volume. It has a worldwide circulation and effective March 2008, the MEJA has become an electronic journal. The main objective of the journal is to act as a forum for publication, education, and exchange of opinions, and to promote research and publications of the Middle Eastern heritage of medicine and anesthesia.
期刊最新文献
Amniotic fluid embolism. THE EFFECT OF ETHNICITY ON THE INCIDENCE OF POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING IN MODERATE TO HIGH RISK PATIENTS UNDERGOING GENERAL ANESTHESIA IN SOUTH AFRICA: A CONTROLLED OBSERVATIONAL STUDY. Dose-Dependent Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Ketamine in Liver Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury. Effects of Circuit Leak Development Over Time and Response During Low-Flow Volume and Pressure-Controlled Ventilation. Post-Partum Malignant Hypertension in a Patient with Preeclampsia and Abruptio Placenta.
×
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