首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >A comparison of the transillumination-assisted technique versus midline approach technique in novices: a prospective randomized controlled trial about the Bonfils intubation fiberscope
【24h】

A comparison of the transillumination-assisted technique versus midline approach technique in novices: a prospective randomized controlled trial about the Bonfils intubation fiberscope

机译:新手使用透照辅助技术与中线入路技术的比较:有关Bonfils插管纤维镜的前瞻性随机对照试验

获取原文
       

摘要

Background The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy for novices to conduct intubation with the Bonfils intubation fiberscope (BIF) using the transillumination-assisted or midline approach technique in patients with normal airways. Methods In this prospective randomized control study, 10 trainees were assigned to the transillumination-assisted technique group (T group) or the midline approach technique group (R group). Each trainee was required to conduct intubation in 50 patients. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were success rate (%), number of attempts, and complications. Results Among the cases of successful intubation, the intubation time was not significantly different between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The overall success rate of intubation was not significantly different between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The intubation success rates at the first, second, and third attempts as well as the average intubation times were similar between the two groups ( P > 0.05), but in patients receiving successful intubation at the second attempt, the intubation time was longer in the T group ( P = 0.0006). The incidences of dry throat, sore throat, and hoarseness were higher in the T group (all P Conclusions For patients with a normal airway, the transillumination-assisted technique was unlikely to increase the success rate of intubation with the BIF compared with the midline approach technique, but led to more complications. Trial registration ChiCTR-INR-16009967 , retrospectively registered on November 22, 2016
机译:背景技术本研究旨在比较正常呼吸道患者使用透照辅助或中线入路技术通过Bonfils插管纤维镜(BIF)对新手进行插管的安全性和有效性。方法在这项前瞻性随机对照研究中,将10名受训者分配到透照辅助技术组(T组)或中线入路技术组(R组)。每位学员需要对50名患者进行插管。主要结果是插管时间。次要结果是成功率(%),尝试次数和并发症。结果在成功插管的病例中,两组的插管时间无明显差异(P> 0.05)。两组总的插管成功率没有显着差异(P> 0.05)。两组的第一次,第二次和第三次插管成功率以及平均插管时间相似(P> 0.05),但是在第二次尝试中成功插管的患者中,插管时间更长。 T组(P = 0.0006)。 T组干嗓,咽痛和声音嘶哑的发生率较高(所有P结论)对于气道正常的患者,与中线入路相比,透照辅助技术不太可能增加BIF插管的成功率。技术,但会带来更多的并发症。试验注册ChiCTR-INR-16009967,追溯注册于2016年11月22日

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号