Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™--a comparison of insertion success in novices.
Two new supraglottic airway devices, the LMA Supreme™ (LMA) and the i-gel™, offer potential benefits when inserted by inexperienced operators. This study compared the insertion success rate and ventilation profile between the LMA Supreme and the i-gel when inserted by operators without previous airway management expertise. Following a short lecture and manikin training, airway novices were randomly allocated to insert either the LMA Supreme or the i-gel into 80 patients undergoing breast surgery. ⋯ Mean (SD) leak pressure (29 (8) vs 23 (11) cmH(2)O, p = 0.007) and expired tidal volume (PCV 17 cmH(2)O) (785 (198) vs 654 (91), p = 0.001) were significantly greater with the LMA Supreme than with the i-gel, respectively. More patients complained of pharyngolaryngeal pain with the LMA Supreme than with the i-gel (17/39 (44%) vs 8/41 (20%); p = 0.053). We found better first time success rate, fewer failures, and a better seal with the LMA Supreme compared with the i-gel, indicating that the LMA Supreme may be preferable for emergency airway use by novices.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Comparison of malleable stylet and reusable and disposable bougies by paramedics in a simulated difficult intubation.
In a randomised crossover study, 60 ambulance paramedics attempted tracheal intubation of a manikin model of a Cormack and Lehane grade 3/4 view using a Portex stylet, Portex and Frova single-use bougies, and a Portex reusable bougie. Tracheal intubation within 30 s was achieved by 34/60 (57%) using the stylet, 18/60 (30%) using a Portex single-use bougie, 16/60 (27%) using a Frova single-use bougie and 5/60 (8%) using a Portex reusable bougie. ⋯ Participants rated the Portex reusable bougie as significantly more difficult to use than the other devices (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a relationship between previous experience and success rate for any device.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The Shikani optical stylet as an alternative to the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope in simulated difficult intubations--a randomised controlled trial.
The GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscope is widely utilised in the management of the difficult airway. However, complications such as mucosal injury, palatal and tonsillar perforations have been reported with its use. The Shikani optical stylet has shown promise in aiding difficult intubations. ⋯ The mean (SD) time to intubation was 64 (37) s when using the GlideScope and 58 (26) s in the Shikani group (p = 0.48). A higher incidence of airway mucosal injury was noted in patients intubated with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope, compared with the Shikani optical stylet (5 vs 0, respectively, p = 0.05). This trial suggests that the Shikani optical stylet is a viable alternative to the GlideScope videolaryngoscope in the management of the difficult airway.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A comparison of Rapydan® patch and Ametop® gel for venous cannulation.
Ametop(®) gel (4% tetracaine) is used to provide topical anaesthesia for venous cannulation. Rapydan(®) patch (7% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine) has been developed to provide topical anaesthesia by a different mechanism, that of heat assisted delivery. We compared the topical anaesthetic effect of these agents for venous cannulation. ⋯ Median(IQR[range]) pain scores were not different between groups with 11 (5-20 [0-72]) for Rapydan and 10 (5-24 [0-95]) for Ametop (p = 0.63). Adequate topical anaesthesia was achieved in over 90% of patients in both groups. Rapydan produces topical anaesthesia comparable with Ametop for venous cannulation.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Comparison of the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation.
Intubation with a double-lumen tube is important for achieving one-lung ventilation and facilitating thoracic surgery. The GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA) is designed to assist tracheal intubation for patients with a difficult airway. We wished to compare the GlideScope and direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation. ⋯ There was no difference in the success of the first attempt at intubation (26/30 (87%) and 30/30 (100%) for Macintosh and GlideScope groups, respectively; p = 0.112). The incidence of sore throat and hoarseness was higher in the Macintosh group (18 (60%) and 14 (47%), respectively) than in the GlideScope group (6 (20%) and 4 (13%), respectively; p = 0.003 and 0.004). We conclude that double-lumen tube intubation in patients with predicted normal laryngoscopy is easier using the GlideScope videolaryngoscope than the Macintosh laryngoscope.