STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the success of orotracheal intubation in 62 seconds or less using the GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) and a 60 degrees or 90 degrees angled stylet with reverse loading of the endotracheal tube (ETT). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Operating room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I, II, and III adult patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 60 each); both groups received general anesthesia and neuromuscular relaxation. A conventional ETT was styleted and then bent from its straight configuration just above the cuff, either at 60 degrees or 90 degrees against its concave natural curve (reverse loading). Four attending anesthesiologists, who were blinded as to stylet assignment (the 60 degrees or 90 degrees group), intubated the tracheas of all patients with the GVL using either the primary or secondary stylet. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was success of orotracheal intubation in 62 seconds or less. The secondary outcome was actual time to intubation (TTI). MAIN RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) for intubation success was higher in the 90 degrees group than the 60 degrees group (OR = 10.41; P < 0.03), as evidenced by 59 of 60 patients whose tracheas were intubated successfully within 62 seconds, compared with 51 of 60 patients in the 60 degrees group. Seven of the 9 failures were due to inability of the 60 degrees stylet to reach the glottic opening. The three remaining failures were associated with TTI of more than 62 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: The 90 degrees angled malleable stylet with reverse loading of the ETT provided more reliable ETT delivery to the glottic opening and had a higher success rate than the 60 degrees stylet. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the success of orotracheal intubation in 62 seconds or less using the GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) and a 60 degrees or 90 degrees angled stylet with reverse loading of the endotracheal tube (ETT). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Operating room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I, II, and III adult patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 60 each); both groups received general anesthesia and neuromuscular relaxation. A conventional ETT was styleted and then bent from its straight configuration just above the cuff, either at 60 degrees or 90 degrees against its concave natural curve (reverse loading). Four attending anesthesiologists, who were blinded as to stylet assignment (the 60 degrees or 90 degrees group), intubated the tracheas of all patients with the GVL using either the primary or secondary stylet. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was success of orotracheal intubation in 62 seconds or less. The secondary outcome was actual time to intubation (TTI). MAIN RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) for intubation success was higher in the 90 degrees group than the 60 degrees group (OR = 10.41; P < 0.03), as evidenced by 59 of 60 patients whose tracheas were intubated successfully within 62 seconds, compared with 51 of 60 patients in the 60 degrees group. Seven of the 9 failures were due to inability of the 60 degrees stylet to reach the glottic opening. The three remaining failures were associated with TTI of more than 62 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: The 90 degrees angled malleable stylet with reverse loading of the ETT provided more reliable ETT delivery to the glottic opening and had a higher success rate than the 60 degrees stylet. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Saad A Sheta; Ashraf A Abdelhalim; Ismail A ElZoughari; Tariq A AlZahrani; Abdulhamid H Al-Saeed Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Jiyoung Lee; Jong Yeop Kim; Se Yoon Kang; Hyun Jeong Kwak; Dongchul Lee; Sook Young Lee Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Dharshi Karalapillai; Jai Darvall; Justin Mandeville; Louise Ellard; Jon Graham; Laurence Weinberg Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2014-07
Authors: Go Un Roh; Yun Jeong Chae; Young Bok Lee; Wikwang Wang; Chang Ik Choi; In Kyong Yi Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; Philip M Jones; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; George Kovacs Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.063