一项人体模型研究,比较了传统Macintosh喉镜、GlideScope®、Airtraq®和视频光学插管探针在模拟困难气道插管中的气管插管中的性能:一项试点研究

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2022-09-23 DOI:10.1177/10249079221125023
Yu On Li, O. Wong, S. Ko, Hing Man Ma, C. Lit, Yau Ngai Shih
{"title":"一项人体模型研究,比较了传统Macintosh喉镜、GlideScope®、Airtraq®和视频光学插管探针在模拟困难气道插管中的气管插管中的性能:一项试点研究","authors":"Yu On Li, O. Wong, S. Ko, Hing Man Ma, C. Lit, Yau Ngai Shih","doi":"10.1177/10249079221125023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The video-optical intubation stylet (VS) is a slim, rigid but flexible intubating device that aids physicians to intubate patients, particularly with difficult airways. Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of emergency department doctors in using different intubating devices for intubation in an airway manikin simulating different difficult airway scenarios. Methods: Thirty emergency department doctors were recruited in a pilot study. Their performance of using traditional Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope®, Airtraq® and C-MAC® Video Stylet were compared in three situations: normal, restricted cervical motion and limited oral aperture. The time for intubation, first attempt success rate, failure rate, dental injury and the subjective ease of different devices by the participants were compared. Result: The mean intubation time by VS in each scenario was significantly shorter compared with other devices (Normal: 19.77s vs 24.67–28.19s, p = 0.014; Cervical restriction: 20.85 vs 26.17–31.26s, p = 0.008; Limited oral aperture:19.03 vs 29.35, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in failure rate or first attempt success rate. The incidence of dental injury was significantly lower with VS than other laryngoscopes (p = 0.001, p < 0.05 and p < 0.05 in normal, cervical restriction and limited oral aperture scenarios, respectively). Moreover, participants appreciated that VS was the easiest device to intubate in each scenario. (p < 0.05 in all scenarios) Conclusion: The performance of VS was comparable to or even better than the commonly used laryngoscopes in the emergency department in airway management. When adequate training is provided, VS can be a potentially good alternative for tracheal intubation in different situations.","PeriodicalId":50401,"journal":{"name":"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A manikin study comparing the performance of traditional Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope®, Airtraq®, and video-optical intubation stylet in endotracheal intubation used by emergency doctors in simulated difficult airway intubation: A pilot study\",\"authors\":\"Yu On Li, O. Wong, S. Ko, Hing Man Ma, C. Lit, Yau Ngai Shih\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10249079221125023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The video-optical intubation stylet (VS) is a slim, rigid but flexible intubating device that aids physicians to intubate patients, particularly with difficult airways. Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of emergency department doctors in using different intubating devices for intubation in an airway manikin simulating different difficult airway scenarios. Methods: Thirty emergency department doctors were recruited in a pilot study. Their performance of using traditional Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope®, Airtraq® and C-MAC® Video Stylet were compared in three situations: normal, restricted cervical motion and limited oral aperture. The time for intubation, first attempt success rate, failure rate, dental injury and the subjective ease of different devices by the participants were compared. Result: The mean intubation time by VS in each scenario was significantly shorter compared with other devices (Normal: 19.77s vs 24.67–28.19s, p = 0.014; Cervical restriction: 20.85 vs 26.17–31.26s, p = 0.008; Limited oral aperture:19.03 vs 29.35, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in failure rate or first attempt success rate. The incidence of dental injury was significantly lower with VS than other laryngoscopes (p = 0.001, p < 0.05 and p < 0.05 in normal, cervical restriction and limited oral aperture scenarios, respectively). Moreover, participants appreciated that VS was the easiest device to intubate in each scenario. (p < 0.05 in all scenarios) Conclusion: The performance of VS was comparable to or even better than the commonly used laryngoscopes in the emergency department in airway management. When adequate training is provided, VS can be a potentially good alternative for tracheal intubation in different situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10249079221125023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10249079221125023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:视频光学插管管心针(VS)是一种细长、坚硬但灵活的插管设备,可帮助医生为患者插管,尤其是气道困难的患者。目的:本研究的目的是比较急诊科医生在模拟不同气道困难场景的气道模型中使用不同插管装置进行插管的表现。方法:在一项试点研究中招募了30名急诊科医生。比较了他们在三种情况下使用传统Macintosh喉镜、GlideScope®、Airtraq®和C-MAC®视频笔的性能:正常、受限的颈部运动和受限的口腔孔径。比较了参与者的插管时间、首次尝试成功率、失败率、牙齿损伤和不同器械的主观简易性。结果:与其他装置相比,VS在每种情况下的平均插管时间显著缩短(正常:19.77s VS 24.67-28.19s,p = 0.014;宫颈限制:20.85 vs 26.17–31.26秒,p = 0.008;有限口腔孔径:19.03 vs 29.35,p = 0.001)。然而,失败率或首次尝试成功率没有显著差异。VS的牙伤发生率明显低于其他喉镜(p = 0.001,p < 0.05和p < 在正常、宫颈受限和口腔受限情况下分别为0.05)。此外,参与者意识到VS在每种情况下都是最容易插管的设备。(p < 0.05)结论:VS在气道管理方面的表现与急诊科常用喉镜相当,甚至更好。当提供足够的训练时,VS可能是在不同情况下气管插管的一个潜在的好选择。
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
A manikin study comparing the performance of traditional Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope®, Airtraq®, and video-optical intubation stylet in endotracheal intubation used by emergency doctors in simulated difficult airway intubation: A pilot study
Background: The video-optical intubation stylet (VS) is a slim, rigid but flexible intubating device that aids physicians to intubate patients, particularly with difficult airways. Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of emergency department doctors in using different intubating devices for intubation in an airway manikin simulating different difficult airway scenarios. Methods: Thirty emergency department doctors were recruited in a pilot study. Their performance of using traditional Macintosh laryngoscope, GlideScope®, Airtraq® and C-MAC® Video Stylet were compared in three situations: normal, restricted cervical motion and limited oral aperture. The time for intubation, first attempt success rate, failure rate, dental injury and the subjective ease of different devices by the participants were compared. Result: The mean intubation time by VS in each scenario was significantly shorter compared with other devices (Normal: 19.77s vs 24.67–28.19s, p = 0.014; Cervical restriction: 20.85 vs 26.17–31.26s, p = 0.008; Limited oral aperture:19.03 vs 29.35, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in failure rate or first attempt success rate. The incidence of dental injury was significantly lower with VS than other laryngoscopes (p = 0.001, p < 0.05 and p < 0.05 in normal, cervical restriction and limited oral aperture scenarios, respectively). Moreover, participants appreciated that VS was the easiest device to intubate in each scenario. (p < 0.05 in all scenarios) Conclusion: The performance of VS was comparable to or even better than the commonly used laryngoscopes in the emergency department in airway management. When adequate training is provided, VS can be a potentially good alternative for tracheal intubation in different situations.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which focusses on all aspects of clinical practice and emergency medicine research in the hospital and pre-hospital setting.
期刊最新文献
Mechanical ventilation management and airway pressure release ventilation practice in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A cross‐sectional survey of intensive care unit clinicians in mainland China Comparison of film array pneumonia panel to routine diagnostic methods and its potential impact in an adult intensive care unit in Hong Kong and the potential role of emergency departments Questionnaire survey on point‐of‐care ultrasound utilization during cardiac arrest among emergency physicians in Hong Kong Burnout in emergency physicians in Hong Kong—A cross‐sectional study on its prevalence, associated factors, and impact Factors for predicting 28‐day mortality in older patients with suspected of having sepsis in the emergency department
×
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