Comparison between GlideRite® rigid stylet and Parker Flex-It™ stylet to facilitate GlideScope intubation in simulated difficult intubation: a randomized controlled study.

Anesthesia and pain medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-30 DOI:10.17085/apm.21095
Ji Won Bak, Yeonji Noh, Juyoun Kim, Byeongmun Hwang, Seongsik Kang, Heejeong Son, Minsoo Kim
{"title":"Comparison between GlideRite® rigid stylet and Parker Flex-It™ stylet to facilitate GlideScope intubation in simulated difficult intubation: a randomized controlled study.","authors":"Ji Won Bak,&nbsp;Yeonji Noh,&nbsp;Juyoun Kim,&nbsp;Byeongmun Hwang,&nbsp;Seongsik Kang,&nbsp;Heejeong Son,&nbsp;Minsoo Kim","doi":"10.17085/apm.21095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) is widely used in patients with difficult airways and provides a good glottic view. However, the acute angle of the blade can make insertion and advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) more difficult than direct laryngoscopy, and the use of a stylet is recommended. This randomized controlled trial compared Parker Flex-It™ stylet (PFS) with GlideRite® rigid stylet (GRS) to facilitate intubation with the GVL in simulated difficult intubations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-four patients were randomly allocated to undergo GVL intubation using either GRS (GRS group) or PFS (PFS group). The total intubation time (TIT), 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for ease of intubation, success rate at the first attempt, use of laryngeal manipulation, tube advancement rate by assistant, and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the GRS and PFS groups regarding TIT (50.3 ± 12.0 s in the GRS group and 57.8 ± 18.8 s in the PFS group, P = 0.108). However, intubation was more difficult in the PFS group than in the GRS group according to VAS score (P = 0.011). Cases in which the ETT was advanced from the stylet by an assistant, were more frequent in the GRS group than in the PFS group (P = 0.002). The overall incidence of possible complications was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with a simulated difficult airway, there was no difference in TIT using either the PFS or GRS. However, endotracheal intubation with PFS is more difficult to perform than GRS.</p>","PeriodicalId":7801,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"17 1","pages":"104-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e2/5a/apm-21095.PMC8841254.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.21095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) is widely used in patients with difficult airways and provides a good glottic view. However, the acute angle of the blade can make insertion and advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) more difficult than direct laryngoscopy, and the use of a stylet is recommended. This randomized controlled trial compared Parker Flex-It™ stylet (PFS) with GlideRite® rigid stylet (GRS) to facilitate intubation with the GVL in simulated difficult intubations.

Methods: Fifty-four patients were randomly allocated to undergo GVL intubation using either GRS (GRS group) or PFS (PFS group). The total intubation time (TIT), 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for ease of intubation, success rate at the first attempt, use of laryngeal manipulation, tube advancement rate by assistant, and complications were recorded.

Results: There was no significant difference between the GRS and PFS groups regarding TIT (50.3 ± 12.0 s in the GRS group and 57.8 ± 18.8 s in the PFS group, P = 0.108). However, intubation was more difficult in the PFS group than in the GRS group according to VAS score (P = 0.011). Cases in which the ETT was advanced from the stylet by an assistant, were more frequent in the GRS group than in the PFS group (P = 0.002). The overall incidence of possible complications was not significantly different.

Conclusions: In patients with a simulated difficult airway, there was no difference in TIT using either the PFS or GRS. However, endotracheal intubation with PFS is more difficult to perform than GRS.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
GlideRite®刚性导管与Parker Flex-It™导管在模拟困难插管中的比较:一项随机对照研究。
背景:GlideScope®视频喉镜(GVL)广泛用于气道困难的患者,提供良好的声门视野。然而,叶片的锐角会使气管内插管(ETT)的插入和推进比直接喉镜检查更困难,因此建议使用气管内插管针。这项随机对照试验比较了Parker Flex-It™风格(PFS)和GlideRite®刚性风格(GRS),以促进GVL在模拟困难插管中的插管。方法:54例患者随机分为GRS组(GRS组)和PFS组(PFS组)。记录总插管时间(TIT)、100 mm视觉模拟评分(VAS)、首次插管成功率、喉部手法使用情况、辅助插管推进率及并发症。结果:GRS组与PFS组间TIT差异无统计学意义(GRS组为50.3±12.0 s, PFS组为57.8±18.8 s, P = 0.108)。VAS评分显示PFS组插管难度高于GRS组(P = 0.011)。由助手将ETT从stylet推进的病例在GRS组中比PFS组更频繁(P = 0.002)。可能的并发症的总发生率无显著差异。结论:在模拟气道困难的患者中,使用PFS或GRS的TIT没有差异。然而,PFS气管插管比GRS更难实施。
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
Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the developing brain: an update on theinsights and implications for fetal surgery Extubation and removal of supraglottic airway devices in pediatric anesthesia Relationship between intraoperative requirement for anesthetics and postoperative analgesic consumption in laparoscopic colectomy: a randomized controlled double-blinded study Opioid-free anesthesia using a combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial How does circadian rhythm affect postoperative pain after pediatric acute appendicitis surgery?
×
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