Comparison of the intubation success rate between the intubating catheter and videolaryngoscope in difficult airways: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Several devices and algorithms have already been examined and compared for difficult airway management. However, there is no existing study comparing the success of the Intubating Catheter (IC) and the Videolaryngoscope (VL) in patients who are difficult to intubate. We aimed to compare Frova IC and McGrath VL in terms of intubation success rates in patients with difficult intubation. METHODS: This prospective, randomized study was performed in an university hospital. Patients who underwent an operation under general anesthesia and whom airway management process was deemed difficult were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups by envelopes containing a number: the intubating catheter group (Group IC), intubated using the Frova IC, and the videolaryngoscope group (Group VL), intubated using the McGrath VL. Study data were collected by a technician who was blind to the study groups and the type of device used in the intubation procedure. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients with difficult airway were included in the study, including 25 patients in the Frova IC Group and 24 patients in the McGrath VL Group. The rate of successful intubation was determined to be 88% in Group IC and 66% in Group VL (p = 0.074). The mean duration of intubation attempt in Group VL was 44.62 seconds, whereas in Group IC, it was 51.12 seconds (p = 0.593). Group VL was found to have a significantly lower Cormack-Lehane grade compared to Group IC (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Frova IC is a candidate to be an indispensable instrument in terms of cost-effectiveness in clinics such as anesthesia and emergency medicine, where difficult intubation cases are frequently encountered. However, the combination of Frova IC and McGrath VL seems to be more successful in difficult intubation situations, so future studies should focus on using these two devices together.

Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block using levobupivacaine versus periarticular levobupivacaine infiltration after totalknee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Both postoperative pain control and range of motion are important in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, in the literature, there is little comparison of peripheral nerve blocks and periarticular infiltration techniques using levobupivacaine. The aim of our study was to measure pain with visual analogue scale (VAS) and knee range of motion (ROM) between in patients undergoing adductor canal block (ACB) for TKA using levobupivacaine compared to periarticular levobupivacaine infiltration (PAI-L). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective randomized clinical trial in a university hospital. METHODS: Patients aged 40-85 years who underwent unilateral TKA were included; 39 were treated withperiarticular infiltration using 40 ml (0.125 mg) of levobupivacaine (PAI-L group); and 40 were treated with ACB using 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine (ACB-L group). Postoperative pain scores at rest and during active physical therapy were assessed using a VAS, along with knee ROM in flexion and extension. In addition, 100-foot walking time results, total morphine consumption and time of first analgesia requirement were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: VAS scores at rest and during active physical therapy and the total amount of morphine consumed were lower in the ACB-L group than in the PAI-L group (P < 0.05). In contrast, knee ROM in flexion and extension and 100-foot walking times were greater in the PAI-L group than in the ACB-L group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ACB-L was superior to PAI-L regarding pain treatment after TKA; however, PAI-L was superior to ACB-L regarding postoperative ROM and walking ability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ACTRN-12618000438257.

Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block using levobupivacaine versus periarticular levobupivacaine infiltration after totalknee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Both postoperative pain control and range of motion are important in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, in the literature, there is little comparison of peripheral nerve blocks and periarticular infiltration techniques using levobupivacaine. The aim of our study was to measure pain with visual analogue scale (VAS) and knee range of motion (ROM) between in patients undergoing adductor canal block (ACB) for TKA using levobupivacaine compared to periarticular levobupivacaine infiltration (PAI-L). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective randomized clinical trial in a university hospital. METHODS: Patients aged 40-85 years who underwent unilateral TKA were included; 39 were treated withperiarticular infiltration using 40 ml (0.125 mg) of levobupivacaine (PAI-L group); and 40 were treated with ACB using 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine (ACB-L group). Postoperative pain scores at rest and during active physical therapy were assessed using a VAS, along with knee ROM in flexion and extension. In addition, 100-foot walking time results, total morphine consumption and time of first analgesia requirement were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: VAS scores at rest and during active physical therapy and the total amount of morphine consumed were lower in the ACB-L group than in the PAI-L group (P < 0.05). In contrast, knee ROM in flexion and extension and 100-foot walking times were greater in the PAI-L group than in the ACB-L group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ACB-L was superior to PAI-L regarding pain treatment after TKA; however, PAI-L was superior to ACB-L regarding postoperative ROM and walking ability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ACTRN-12618000438257.