气管插管时血流动力学反应和口咽并发症的比较分析:评估全身麻醉下的传统喉镜、视频喉镜和硬式视频喉镜

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine Medical Science Monitor Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.12659/MSM.944916
Liyu Wang, Hui Li, Yanni Zhong, Sanchun Ye, Jingjing Deng, Ting Pan, Yuenong Zhang
{"title":"气管插管时血流动力学反应和口咽并发症的比较分析:评估全身麻醉下的传统喉镜、视频喉镜和硬式视频喉镜","authors":"Liyu Wang, Hui Li, Yanni Zhong, Sanchun Ye, Jingjing Deng, Ting Pan, Yuenong Zhang","doi":"10.12659/MSM.944916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic changes and the occurrence of oropharyngeal complications among patients undergoing tracheal intubation with an ordinary laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, and rigid video laryngoscope under general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients undergoing elective tracheal intubation under general anesthesia were prospectively enrolled as study subjects. Hemodynamic indicators such as diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR), as well as the incidences of oropharyngeal complications, including dental injury, oral mucosal injury, hoarseness, sore throat, and dysphagia, were observed in the patients of 3 groups (group A: ordinary laryngoscope, group B: video laryngoscope, group C: rigid video laryngoscope). Observations were made after anesthesia induction (T₀), immediately after tracheal intubation (T₁), and at 5 min after intubation (T₂). RESULTS The HR at T1 in group A was significantly higher than in groups B and C (P<0.05). However, the difference in the number of tracheal intubations was statistically significant among the 3 groups (P<0.05); group C exhibited the highest first-time success rate of tracheal intubation (95%), whereas group A had the highest failure rate (5%). Significant differences were also noted in the incidences of oral mucosal injury and sore throat among the groups (P<0.05), with the highest incidence in group A and the lowest in group C. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the ordinary laryngoscope, tracheal intubation using a video or rigid video laryngoscope results in milder hemodynamic impacts and fewer intubation-related complications. The rigid video laryngoscope may be safer and more effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e944916"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Hemodynamic Responses and Oropharyngeal Complications in Tracheal Intubation: Evaluating Conventional, Video, and Rigid Video Laryngoscopes Under General Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Liyu Wang, Hui Li, Yanni Zhong, Sanchun Ye, Jingjing Deng, Ting Pan, Yuenong Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.12659/MSM.944916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic changes and the occurrence of oropharyngeal complications among patients undergoing tracheal intubation with an ordinary laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, and rigid video laryngoscope under general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients undergoing elective tracheal intubation under general anesthesia were prospectively enrolled as study subjects. Hemodynamic indicators such as diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR), as well as the incidences of oropharyngeal complications, including dental injury, oral mucosal injury, hoarseness, sore throat, and dysphagia, were observed in the patients of 3 groups (group A: ordinary laryngoscope, group B: video laryngoscope, group C: rigid video laryngoscope). Observations were made after anesthesia induction (T₀), immediately after tracheal intubation (T₁), and at 5 min after intubation (T₂). RESULTS The HR at T1 in group A was significantly higher than in groups B and C (P<0.05). However, the difference in the number of tracheal intubations was statistically significant among the 3 groups (P<0.05); group C exhibited the highest first-time success rate of tracheal intubation (95%), whereas group A had the highest failure rate (5%). Significant differences were also noted in the incidences of oral mucosal injury and sore throat among the groups (P<0.05), with the highest incidence in group A and the lowest in group C. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the ordinary laryngoscope, tracheal intubation using a video or rigid video laryngoscope results in milder hemodynamic impacts and fewer intubation-related complications. The rigid video laryngoscope may be safer and more effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"e944916\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385090/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.944916\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.944916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 本研究旨在比较在全身麻醉下使用普通喉镜、视频喉镜和硬质视频喉镜进行气管插管的患者的血流动力学变化和口咽部并发症的发生率。材料与方法 前瞻性地将在全身麻醉下接受择期气管插管的患者作为研究对象。观察 3 组(A 组:普通喉镜;B 组:视频喉镜;C 组:硬质视频喉镜)患者的舒张压 (DBP)、收缩压 (SBP)、平均动脉压 (MAP) 和心率 (HR) 等血流动力学指标,以及口咽部并发症(包括牙齿损伤、口腔粘膜损伤、声音嘶哑、咽喉疼痛和吞咽困难)的发生率。观察时间分别为麻醉诱导后(T₀)、气管插管后立即(T₁)和插管后 5 分钟(T₂)。结果 A 组 T1 时的心率明显高于 B 组和 C 组(P<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative Analysis of Hemodynamic Responses and Oropharyngeal Complications in Tracheal Intubation: Evaluating Conventional, Video, and Rigid Video Laryngoscopes Under General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic changes and the occurrence of oropharyngeal complications among patients undergoing tracheal intubation with an ordinary laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, and rigid video laryngoscope under general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients undergoing elective tracheal intubation under general anesthesia were prospectively enrolled as study subjects. Hemodynamic indicators such as diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR), as well as the incidences of oropharyngeal complications, including dental injury, oral mucosal injury, hoarseness, sore throat, and dysphagia, were observed in the patients of 3 groups (group A: ordinary laryngoscope, group B: video laryngoscope, group C: rigid video laryngoscope). Observations were made after anesthesia induction (T₀), immediately after tracheal intubation (T₁), and at 5 min after intubation (T₂). RESULTS The HR at T1 in group A was significantly higher than in groups B and C (P<0.05). However, the difference in the number of tracheal intubations was statistically significant among the 3 groups (P<0.05); group C exhibited the highest first-time success rate of tracheal intubation (95%), whereas group A had the highest failure rate (5%). Significant differences were also noted in the incidences of oral mucosal injury and sore throat among the groups (P<0.05), with the highest incidence in group A and the lowest in group C. CONCLUSIONS Compared with the ordinary laryngoscope, tracheal intubation using a video or rigid video laryngoscope results in milder hemodynamic impacts and fewer intubation-related complications. The rigid video laryngoscope may be safer and more effective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
期刊最新文献
Decreased RSPO3 and β-Catenin in Preeclampsia: Correlation with Blood Pressure and Pregnancy Outcomes. Computed Tomography Parameters for Prognosis Prediction in Non-Occlusive Mesenteric Ischemia. Optimizing Anesthetic Management for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review. Impact of Prior Cesarean Delivery on Pregnancy Outcomes and Hemorrhage Risks in Complete Placenta Previa: A Decade-Long Retrospective Analysis. Analysis of Mortality Causes and Locations in Veterans with ALS: A Decade Review.
×
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