Jee-Eun Chang1, Hyerim Kim1, Seong-Won Min1, Jung-Man Lee1, Jung-Hee Ryu2, Soohyuk Yoon3, Jin-Young Hwang4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi-go, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: mistyblue15@naver.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare GlideScope and lighted stylet for double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) intubation in terms of intubation time, success rate of first attempt at intubation, difficulty in DLT advancement toward the glottis, and postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Medical center governed by a university hostpial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two adult patients undergoing thoracic surgery using DLT intubation. INTERVENTION: After the induction of anesthesia, DLT intubation was performed using GlideScope (n = 32) or lighted stylet (n = 32). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Number of intubation attempts, difficulty of DLT advancement toward the glottis, time taken for DLT intubation, and the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness at 1 and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated. Time taken for DLT intubation was shorter in the lighted stylet group compared with the GlideScope group (30 [28-32] s v 45 [38-53] s, median [interquartile range], respectively; p < 0.001). DLT advancement toward the glottis was easier in the lighted stylet group than in the GlideScope group (p = 0.016). The success rate of DLT intubation in the first attempt (96.9% v 90.6% for lighted stylet and GlideScope, respectively), and the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of lighted stylet allowed easier advancement of the DLT toward the glottis in the oropharyngeal space and reduced time for achieving DLT intubation compared with GlideScope.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare GlideScope and lighted stylet for double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) intubation in terms of intubation time, success rate of first attempt at intubation, difficulty in DLT advancement toward the glottis, and postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Medical center governed by a university hostpial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two adult patients undergoing thoracic surgery using DLT intubation. INTERVENTION: After the induction of anesthesia, DLT intubation was performed using GlideScope (n = 32) or lighted stylet (n = 32). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Number of intubation attempts, difficulty of DLT advancement toward the glottis, time taken for DLT intubation, and the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness at 1 and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated. Time taken for DLT intubation was shorter in the lighted stylet group compared with the GlideScope group (30 [28-32] s v 45 [38-53] s, median [interquartile range], respectively; p < 0.001). DLT advancement toward the glottis was easier in the lighted stylet group than in the GlideScope group (p = 0.016). The success rate of DLT intubation in the first attempt (96.9% v 90.6% for lighted stylet and GlideScope, respectively), and the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of lighted stylet allowed easier advancement of the DLT toward the glottis in the oropharyngeal space and reduced time for achieving DLT intubation compared with GlideScope.