Peter Biro1, Martin Schlaepfer2. 1. Institute of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Physiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Videolaryngoscopes can be fitted either with channeled or non-channeled blades, which may result in a different performance and success of tracheal intubation. We investigated the characteristics of the two different blade types of the commercially available KingVision™ videolaryngoscope. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single center investigation study in a urological operation unit of a tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery in general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation were randomly allocated into group 1 (channeled videolaryngoscopy, n = 20) and group 2 (non-channeled videolaryngoscopy, n = 20). We measured the times from laryngoscope insertion to recognize the glottis and to conclude tracheal intubation. The number of laryngoscopy/intubation attempts and the degree of visual glottis exposure on a visual analog scale from 0 (glottis not visible) to 10 (glottis fully visible) was assessed. The lowest SpO2 value during airway management was recorded. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in biometric data between the 2 groups. The time from the laryngoscope insertion to glottis recognition with the non-channeled blades was 5 (4-8) s as compared to the channeled ones with 11 (7-14) s (median and range; p = 0.01). Intubation duration was shorter with the channeled blades 17 (12-27) s vs. 29 (25-51) s (median and range; p < 0.001). Number of laryngoscopy/intubation attempts, grades for glottis visibility, intubation difficulty were not different. The lowest SpO2 was 98% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopic glottis recognition time was longer and the total time to secure the airway was shorter with the channeled blades.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Videolaryngoscopes can be fitted either with channeled or non-channeled blades, which may result in a different performance and success of tracheal intubation. We investigated the characteristics of the two different blade types of the commercially available KingVision™ videolaryngoscope. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single center investigation study in a urological operation unit of a tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery in general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation were randomly allocated into group 1 (channeled videolaryngoscopy, n = 20) and group 2 (non-channeled videolaryngoscopy, n = 20). We measured the times from laryngoscope insertion to recognize the glottis and to conclude tracheal intubation. The number of laryngoscopy/intubation attempts and the degree of visual glottis exposure on a visual analog scale from 0 (glottis not visible) to 10 (glottis fully visible) was assessed. The lowest SpO2 value during airway management was recorded. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in biometric data between the 2 groups. The time from the laryngoscope insertion to glottis recognition with the non-channeled blades was 5 (4-8) s as compared to the channeled ones with 11 (7-14) s (median and range; p = 0.01). Intubation duration was shorter with the channeled blades 17 (12-27) s vs. 29 (25-51) s (median and range; p < 0.001). Number of laryngoscopy/intubation attempts, grades for glottis visibility, intubation difficulty were not different. The lowest SpO2 was 98% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopic glottis recognition time was longer and the total time to secure the airway was shorter with the channeled blades.
Authors: Bret D Alvis; Douglas Hester; Dusty Watson; Michael Higgins; Paul St Jacques Journal: Minerva Anestesiol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 3.051
Authors: Jeffrey L Apfelbaum; Carin A Hagberg; Robert A Caplan; Casey D Blitt; Richard T Connis; David G Nickinovich; Carin A Hagberg; Robert A Caplan; Jonathan L Benumof; Frederic A Berry; Casey D Blitt; Robert H Bode; Frederick W Cheney; Richard T Connis; Orin F Guidry; David G Nickinovich; Andranik Ovassapian Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Jose A Valencia; Katherine Pimienta; Darwin Cohen; Daniel Benitez; David Romero; Oswaldo Amaya; Enrique Arango Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 9.452