Anaesthesia
-
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 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.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Directly measured mucosal pressures produced by the i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ in paralysed anaesthetised patients.
The i-gel™ and LMA Supreme™ are extraglottic airway devices with non-inflatable and inflatable cuffs, respectively. We hypothesised that directly measured mucosal pressures would differ between these devices in anesthetised paralysed patients. Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive one of these two devices. ⋯ Mucosal pressures were low and similar for both devices. The LMA Supreme mucosal pressures were higher in the hypopharynx than in the distal oropharynx (p = 0.04) and base of the tongue (p = 0.011). There were no pressure differences between the locations for the i-gel.
-
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 randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children.
The Airtraq(™) optical laryngoscope became available in paediatric sizes in the UK in May 2008. We conducted a randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq with conventional laryngoscopy during routine anaesthesia in children. We hypothesised that the Airtraq laryngoscope would perform as well as conventional laryngoscopy. ⋯ The mean (SD) intubation time using the Airtraq was longer than conventional laryngoscopy overall (47.3 (32.6) vs 26.3 (11.5) s; p=0.002), though the difference was only significant for children (p=0.003) and not for infants (p=0.29). The Airtraq provided a better view of the larynx compared with conventional laryngoscopy (in infants (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (95-100 [90-100]) vs 77 (50-90 [40-100]), respectively; p=0.001; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (9.2-9.5 [8.2-10.0]) vs 6.8 (5.1-8.0 [4.7-10.0]), respectively; p=0.001). In children, the Airtraq provided a similar view of the larynx (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (100-100 [40-100]) vs 100 (90-100 [50-100]), respectively; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [7.0-10.0]) vs 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [5.6-10.0]), respectively; both p>0.05), compared with conventional laryngoscopy.