RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Several video laryngoscopes had demonstrated their superiority over conventional oral and nasal intubation techniques. King Vision video laryngoscope has fewer studies supporting its suitability for oral intubations. However, its suitability as a nasal intubating device has not been yet evaluated. We evaluated the suitability of King Vision video laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation comparing with TruviewPCD. METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II elective surgical patients were studied. After meeting the inclusion criteria, 80 study subjects were randomized into two groups. Group T were intubated using TruviewPCD and Group K were intubated with the nonchanneled King Vision video laryngoscope. Our primary outcome was single successful nasotracheal intubation without use of any additional maneuvers. The time taken for intubation, use of additional maneuverers, Cormack-Lehane grading, and hemodynamics were also analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (88.75%) were successfully intubated in a single attempt, i.e. 35 patients (90%) in Group K and 36 patients (87.5%) in Group T. Intubation time (mean ± standard deviation) was 67.9 ± 24.1 s in Group T and 64.9 ± 20.0 s in Group K where comparison was not statistically significant (P = 0.5). The additional maneuvers (P = 0.2) and hemodynamic changes were not clinically significant. There were no associated serious complications. CONCLUSION: King Vision video laryngoscope is just as effective as TruviewPCD video laryngoscope for successful nasotracheal intubation.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational prospective study was to evaluate the usefulness of TruviewPCD for tracheal intubation in clinical practice, and to provide data for future studies. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A study was conducted on 86 consecutive children undergoing ear, nose and throat (ENT) or paediatric procedures under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Children with two or more difficult airway criteria were excluded. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were successfully intubated with TruviewPCD. Demographic data: Age 4.9 (2.8) years, weight 19.5 (7.7)kg. Seventy-nine children needed one attempt and four required two attempts at intubation. Time for glottis view and tracheal intubation was 10.8 (5.6) and 30 [27.9-37] seconds, respectively. Eighty-one patients were classified as easy or very easy to intubate, and only two cases were considered difficult. No significant complications were registered. CONCLUSIONS: TruviewPCD is a good device for paediatric airway management. It would be interesting to have an intermediate blade between size 1 and 2, as the difference between both is too wide.
Assuntos
Anestesia Geral , Intubação Intratraqueal , Laringoscópios , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Gravação em VídeoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Truview(PCD) laryngoscope is specially designed to aid positioning of the endotracheal tube as well as to record entry of the tube into glottis. Aim of the study is to compare the view of glottic opening and ease of intubation between Truview(PCD) laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA). METHODOLOGY: Two hundred patients undergoing elective surgery, under GA were randomized into two groups, Group TV and Group ML. In Group TV, Trueview(PCD) laryngoscope was used initially to visualize the vocal cords for Cormack and Lehane grading (CLG) and to spray the vocal cords with 10% lignocaine. Then the patient was ventilated for 1 min and Macintosh laryngoscope was used to visualize the vocal cords for CLG and proceed with intubation. In Group ML, Macintosh laryngoscope was used initially and later Truview(PCD) laryngoscope. Time to intubation, CLG, number of attempts and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-six and 89 patients had CLG1 visualization when Truview(PCD) laryngoscope was used as 1(st) and 2(nd) device respectively compared to 41 and 68 with Macintosh laryngoscope (P = 0.00). Four patients had CLG 4 visualization with Macintosh laryngoscope that turned out to be grade II visualization with Truview(PCD) laryngoscope (P = 0.00). Mean time taken for intubation with Truview(PCD) and Macintosh laryngoscope was 21.10 ± 5.64 s and 15.79 ± 2.76 s respectively (P = 0.00). CONCLUSION: Better visualization with lesser CLG was found with Truview(PCD) laryngoscope but it took longer time for intubation than Macintosh laryngoscope. The hemodynamic response to intubation was significantly less with the use of Truview(PCD) laryngoscope when compared to that of Macintosh laryngoscope.