A randomized comparative study between Airtraq and Mccoy for intubation in patients with cervical spine injury

S. Moningi, D. Kulkarni, G. Ramachandran, A. Aluri, Sudheer Kumar Atluri, Anshul Yadav
{"title":"A randomized comparative study between Airtraq and Mccoy for intubation in patients with cervical spine injury","authors":"S. Moningi, D. Kulkarni, G. Ramachandran, A. Aluri, Sudheer Kumar Atluri, Anshul Yadav","doi":"10.4103/2394-6954.190768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study was done to compare Airtraq and McCoy for intubation characteristics and hemodynamic parameters following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Materials and Methods: After Institutional Ethical Committee approval, a prospective randomized comparative study was designed on forty American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients involving single level ACDF surgery. Following standard anesthesia protocol and manual in-line stabilization applied along with a cervical collar or pin traction for immobilization, tracheal intubation was performed either with Airtraq or McCoy. The time taken for intubation, intubation difficulty score (IDS), comfort grading, and hemodynamic parameters were noted following intubation. The categorical data were compared using Chi-square test and the continuous variables were compared between the groups using paired sample t-test. Repeated ANOVA was tested for hemodynamic data at each measurement time point and Tukey post hoc was used for within the group comparisons at different timings following intubation. Results: The mean intubation time was 24.41 ± 14.8 s in Airtraq group (Group A) which was statistically significant compared to McCoy group (Group M) 38.96 ± 15.55 s (P = 0.001). The IDS and comfort grading was statistically significant in Group A compared to Group M. The changes in hemodynamic vitals following intubation were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Airtraq improves the grade of glottic visualization with minimal assistance. It also minimized the time taken for intubation had stable hemodynamics with increased comfort to the anesthetist.","PeriodicalId":17751,"journal":{"name":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2394-6954.190768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: This study was done to compare Airtraq and McCoy for intubation characteristics and hemodynamic parameters following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Materials and Methods: After Institutional Ethical Committee approval, a prospective randomized comparative study was designed on forty American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients involving single level ACDF surgery. Following standard anesthesia protocol and manual in-line stabilization applied along with a cervical collar or pin traction for immobilization, tracheal intubation was performed either with Airtraq or McCoy. The time taken for intubation, intubation difficulty score (IDS), comfort grading, and hemodynamic parameters were noted following intubation. The categorical data were compared using Chi-square test and the continuous variables were compared between the groups using paired sample t-test. Repeated ANOVA was tested for hemodynamic data at each measurement time point and Tukey post hoc was used for within the group comparisons at different timings following intubation. Results: The mean intubation time was 24.41 ± 14.8 s in Airtraq group (Group A) which was statistically significant compared to McCoy group (Group M) 38.96 ± 15.55 s (P = 0.001). The IDS and comfort grading was statistically significant in Group A compared to Group M. The changes in hemodynamic vitals following intubation were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Airtraq improves the grade of glottic visualization with minimal assistance. It also minimized the time taken for intubation had stable hemodynamics with increased comfort to the anesthetist.
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
Airtraq和Mccoy在颈椎损伤患者插管中的随机比较研究
背景:本研究比较了Airtraq和McCoy在行前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)手术患者气管插管后的插管特征和血流动力学参数。材料和方法:经机构伦理委员会批准,对40例美国麻醉师学会I和II级患者进行单节段ACDF手术设计了一项前瞻性随机比较研究。遵循标准麻醉方案和手动在线稳定,并使用颈套或引针牵引固定,气管插管使用Airtraq或McCoy。插管后记录插管时间、插管困难评分(IDS)、舒适度评分和血流动力学参数。分类资料比较采用卡方检验,组间连续变量比较采用配对样本t检验。在每个测量时间点对血流动力学数据进行重复方差分析,并在插管后不同时间点对组内比较使用随机方差分析。结果:Airtraq组(A组)平均插管时间为24.41±14.8 s,与McCoy组(M组)38.96±15.55 s相比,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001)。与m组相比,A组的IDS和舒适度评分具有统计学意义。两组插管后血液动力学指标的变化具有可比性。结论:Airtraq在最小辅助下提高了声门显像的等级。它还减少了插管时间,稳定了血流动力学,增加了麻醉师的舒适度。
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
A bizarre scenario during lung isolation due to interchanged double-lumen tube connectors Anesthetic management of a case of cleidocranial dysplasia Flexible intubation videoscope-guided replacement of tracheostomy tube in a carcinoma larynx patient with extensive subglottic involvement Comparative study of hemodynamic changes using proseal laryngeal mask airway, intubating laryngeal mask airway or laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery A patient with Cushing's disease for pituitary tumor resection: Anesthetic challenges and management
×
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