G Misirlioglu1, O Sen2. 1. Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department, Ministry of Health, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. dr.gamze77@gmail.com. 2. Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department, Ministry of Health, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
AIM: Endotracheal intubation procedure employed during general anaesthesia is the most effective way for keeping the airways and respiration under control and has low risk of complications. We have aimed in this study to compare the first-attempt success and duration of the endotracheal intubation process and its effects on haemodynamics using the Macintosh laryngoscope and the GlideScope video laryngoscope. METHODS: In this prospective randomized single-centre study, 100 patients of 18-65 years of age, and classified within the American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) I-II risk groups before elective ear-nose and throat surgery were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, designated as Group M, to be intubated using the Macintosh laryngoscope, and as Group G, to be intubated using the GlideScope video laryngoscope. The Mallampati scores, Cormack-Lehane classifications, intubation duration, number of attempts at intubation, the haemodynamic response and the complications were recorded. RESULTS: There were not intergroup differences with respect to the number of intubation attempts, the Mallampati and Cormack-Lehane classifications. Duration of intubation was found to be longer in group G. The haemodynamic response values of group M were higher than those of group G. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of intubation attempts, two of the patients in group M were intubated in the second attempt. CONCLUSION: In our study, despite the longer intubation times in group G, the haemodynamic response was significantly lower in this group. It is believed that especially in cases with vital requirement of haemodynamic stability, the GlideScope video laryngoscope would be safer to employ.
RCT Entities:
AIM: Endotracheal intubation procedure employed during general anaesthesia is the most effective way for keeping the airways and respiration under control and has low risk of complications. We have aimed in this study to compare the first-attempt success and duration of the endotracheal intubation process and its effects on haemodynamics using the Macintosh laryngoscope and the GlideScope video laryngoscope. METHODS: In this prospective randomized single-centre study, 100 patients of 18-65 years of age, and classified within the American Society of Anaesthesiologists' (ASA) I-II risk groups before elective ear-nose and throat surgery were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, designated as Group M, to be intubated using the Macintosh laryngoscope, and as Group G, to be intubated using the GlideScope video laryngoscope. The Mallampati scores, Cormack-Lehane classifications, intubation duration, number of attempts at intubation, the haemodynamic response and the complications were recorded. RESULTS: There were not intergroup differences with respect to the number of intubation attempts, the Mallampati and Cormack-Lehane classifications. Duration of intubation was found to be longer in group G. The haemodynamic response values of group M were higher than those of group G. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of intubation attempts, two of the patients in group M were intubated in the second attempt. CONCLUSION: In our study, despite the longer intubation times in group G, the haemodynamic response was significantly lower in this group. It is believed that especially in cases with vital requirement of haemodynamic stability, the GlideScope video laryngoscope would be safer to employ.
Entities:
Keywords:
GlideScope video laryngoscope; Intubation duration; Intubation success; Macintosh laryngoscope
Authors: Aneesh T Narang; Paula F Oldeg; Ron Medzon; Ahmed R Mahmood; Jordan A Spector; Derek A Robinett Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.929