比较C-MAC喉镜、McGrath喉镜和传统Macintosh喉镜在模拟困难气道中的插管便利性

T. Kumaravadivel Dharmalingam, Koay Boon Xin, Koeh Shao Keong, R. K. Muniandy
{"title":"比较C-MAC喉镜、McGrath喉镜和传统Macintosh喉镜在模拟困难气道中的插管便利性","authors":"T. Kumaravadivel Dharmalingam, Koay Boon Xin, Koeh Shao Keong, R. K. Muniandy","doi":"10.51200/bjms.v16i3.3706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tracheal intubation is an essential skill for doctors. Tracheal intubation is done in patients with questionable airway patency, poor respiratory drive, hypercarbia, or hypoxia. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of tracheal intubation using MacintoshLaryngoscopes, C-MAC, and McGrath on a simulated difficult airway mannequin. The rationale of the study was to identify the easiest device to use for tracheal intubation. This randomized clinical trial was done at the Teluk Intan Hospital, Perak, Malaysia, from March 2020 to February 2021. Sixty-five medical officers participated in this study. The results showed that the mean time for tracheal intubation was significantly shorter when the participants were using the C-MAC than the conventional direct laryngoscope and McGrath. (C-MAC: 20.8 seconds, Direct Laryngoscope: 27.7 seconds, McGrath: 34.6 seconds) The results showed that C-MAC andMcGrath had a better first-attempt success rate than conventional direct laryngoscopes. C-MAC scored the highest first-attempt success rate, followed by McGrath. (95% compared to 83%) Regarding Cormack-Lehane grading, the C-MAC device showed a better view than McGrath and Direct Laryngoscope. The preferred device by medical officers for tracheal intubation was the C-MAC. (45% compared to other devices) In conclusion, the C-MAC device was superior in first attempt success rate and was the most preferred device compared to McGrath and direct laryngoscope. However, using the C-MAC device must be accompanied by adequate training and practice. ","PeriodicalId":9287,"journal":{"name":"Borneo Journal of Medical Sciences (BJMS)","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Ease of Intubation between C-MAC, McGrath, and Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope in a Simulated Difficult Airway of a Laerdal Mannequin\",\"authors\":\"T. Kumaravadivel Dharmalingam, Koay Boon Xin, Koeh Shao Keong, R. K. Muniandy\",\"doi\":\"10.51200/bjms.v16i3.3706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tracheal intubation is an essential skill for doctors. Tracheal intubation is done in patients with questionable airway patency, poor respiratory drive, hypercarbia, or hypoxia. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of tracheal intubation using MacintoshLaryngoscopes, C-MAC, and McGrath on a simulated difficult airway mannequin. The rationale of the study was to identify the easiest device to use for tracheal intubation. This randomized clinical trial was done at the Teluk Intan Hospital, Perak, Malaysia, from March 2020 to February 2021. Sixty-five medical officers participated in this study. The results showed that the mean time for tracheal intubation was significantly shorter when the participants were using the C-MAC than the conventional direct laryngoscope and McGrath. (C-MAC: 20.8 seconds, Direct Laryngoscope: 27.7 seconds, McGrath: 34.6 seconds) The results showed that C-MAC andMcGrath had a better first-attempt success rate than conventional direct laryngoscopes. C-MAC scored the highest first-attempt success rate, followed by McGrath. (95% compared to 83%) Regarding Cormack-Lehane grading, the C-MAC device showed a better view than McGrath and Direct Laryngoscope. The preferred device by medical officers for tracheal intubation was the C-MAC. (45% compared to other devices) In conclusion, the C-MAC device was superior in first attempt success rate and was the most preferred device compared to McGrath and direct laryngoscope. However, using the C-MAC device must be accompanied by adequate training and practice. \",\"PeriodicalId\":9287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Borneo Journal of Medical Sciences (BJMS)\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Borneo Journal of Medical Sciences (BJMS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51200/bjms.v16i3.3706\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Borneo Journal of Medical Sciences (BJMS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51200/bjms.v16i3.3706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

气管插管是医生的一项基本技能。气管插管适用于可疑气道通畅、呼吸驱动差、高碳或缺氧的患者。本研究的目的是比较在模拟困难气道人体模型上使用macintosh喉镜、C-MAC和McGrath进行气管插管的便利性。这项研究的基本原理是确定最容易用于气管插管的设备。这项随机临床试验于2020年3月至2021年2月在马来西亚霹雳州的Teluk Intan医院进行。65名医务人员参与了这项研究。结果表明,使用C-MAC时气管插管的平均时间明显短于常规直接喉镜和McGrath。(C-MAC: 20.8秒,直接喉镜:27.7秒,McGrath: 34.6秒)结果表明,C-MAC和McGrath的首次尝试成功率高于常规直接喉镜。C-MAC的第一次尝试成功率最高,其次是McGrath。(95%比83%)关于Cormack-Lehane分级,C-MAC装置比McGrath和直接喉镜显示更好的视野。医务人员首选的气管插管设备是C-MAC。(45%)综上所述,与McGrath和直接喉镜相比,C-MAC装置的首次尝试成功率更高,是最受欢迎的设备。但是,使用C-MAC器械必须经过充分的培训和实践。
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
Comparing the Ease of Intubation between C-MAC, McGrath, and Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope in a Simulated Difficult Airway of a Laerdal Mannequin
Tracheal intubation is an essential skill for doctors. Tracheal intubation is done in patients with questionable airway patency, poor respiratory drive, hypercarbia, or hypoxia. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of tracheal intubation using MacintoshLaryngoscopes, C-MAC, and McGrath on a simulated difficult airway mannequin. The rationale of the study was to identify the easiest device to use for tracheal intubation. This randomized clinical trial was done at the Teluk Intan Hospital, Perak, Malaysia, from March 2020 to February 2021. Sixty-five medical officers participated in this study. The results showed that the mean time for tracheal intubation was significantly shorter when the participants were using the C-MAC than the conventional direct laryngoscope and McGrath. (C-MAC: 20.8 seconds, Direct Laryngoscope: 27.7 seconds, McGrath: 34.6 seconds) The results showed that C-MAC andMcGrath had a better first-attempt success rate than conventional direct laryngoscopes. C-MAC scored the highest first-attempt success rate, followed by McGrath. (95% compared to 83%) Regarding Cormack-Lehane grading, the C-MAC device showed a better view than McGrath and Direct Laryngoscope. The preferred device by medical officers for tracheal intubation was the C-MAC. (45% compared to other devices) In conclusion, the C-MAC device was superior in first attempt success rate and was the most preferred device compared to McGrath and direct laryngoscope. However, using the C-MAC device must be accompanied by adequate training and practice. 
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emergency Haemorrhoidectomy in Acute Haemorrhoidal Crisis: A Tertiary Centre Experience A 20-Year Autopsy Study of Myocardial Bridging Among Sudden Deaths Urgency or Emergency – A Report on Hypertensive Crisis with Severe Retinopathy A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study: Proportion of Authenticity and Complete Product Information of FarmaTag Hologram on Registered Pharmaceutical Products among Selected Mainstream Medicines’ Sellers in the State of Sabah (ProvoS) HTLV-1: Neglected Virus in Southeast Asia for Decades
×
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