...
首页> 外文期刊>Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia >Blind versus fiberoptic laryngoscopic intubation through air Q laryngeal mask airway
【24h】

Blind versus fiberoptic laryngoscopic intubation through air Q laryngeal mask airway

机译:通过空气Q喉罩气道进行盲式与光纤喉镜插管

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background The practice of airway management has become more advanced in recent years. This advancement is demonstrated by the introduction of many new airway devices, several of which have been included in the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA). The most recently developed is air-Q which has special features and benefits that make it characteristic. The success rate of blind intubation versus fiberoptic intubation through air-Q was investigated in this study. Success rate and quality of fiberoptic guided intubations were assessed. Method This study was conducted on 80 patients who underwent urosurgical operations under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups ( n = 40): group I in which intubation was done blindly through air-Q, and group II in which intubation was done by FO through air-Q. All the patients were meticulously assessed by El Ganzouri score. Patients taking points from 0 to 4 were only allowed to be included in this study to avoid the use of the awake technique if the score was 5 or more. After induction of anesthesia patients were primarily ventilated with the air Q. Then the endotracheal tube was inserted either blindly or by FO through the air Q. Successful intubation was confirmed by chest wall movement, auscultation, and capnogram. After three trials of intubations the procedure was abandoned. Twenty-four hours post-intubation, patients were questioned on the occurrence of sore throat and hoarseness. Results The success rate in blind intubation was 70% while in FO intubation was 97.5%.and this difference was statistically significant ( p 0.05). The total time to intubate in seconds was longer in group I than in group II and this difference was statistically significant ( p 0.05). Conclusion In our patients the air Q appeared to be a safe supraglottic airway in general anesthesia with a low potential for trauma of the airway. It is used as a facilitator for blind intubation. It allowed successful blind intubation in 70% of the patients versus 97.5% using fiberoptic technique. Backed up by the presence of a flexible fiberscope, this device might be a useful alternative for the handling of difficult airway.
机译:背景技术近年来,气道管理的实践已经变得更加先进。引入了许多新的呼吸道设备,证明了这一进步,其中一些已被美国麻醉学会(ASA)包括在内。最新开发的是air-Q,它具有使其具有特色的特殊功能和优势。在这项研究中,研究了通过air-Q进行盲式插管与光纤插管的成功率。评估了光纤引导插管的成功率和质量。方法本研究针对80例在全身麻醉下接受泌尿外科手术的患者进行。患者被随机分为两组(n = 40):第一组通过air-Q盲法插管,第二组通过FO-air-Q插管。所有患者均通过El Ganzouri评分进行仔细评估。分数从0到4的患者仅被允许参加本研究,以避免在得分为5或更高时避免使用清醒技术。麻醉后,首先给患者通气Q。然后将气管插管盲注或通过FO通过空气Q插入。通过胸壁运动,听诊和二氧化碳图证实成功插管。经过三次插管试验后,该程序被放弃。插管后二十四小时,询问患者喉咙痛和声音嘶哑的发生情况。结果盲插管成功率为70%,而FO插管成功率为97.5%,差异有统计学意义(p <0.05)。 I组的总插管时间(以秒为单位)比II组更长,并且这种差异具有统计学意义(p <0.05)。结论在我们的患者中,空气Q在全身麻醉中似乎是一种安全的声门上气道,对气道造成创伤的可能性很小。它用作盲插管的促进剂。它允许70%的患者成功进行盲管插管,而使用光纤技术的成功率为97.5%。借助柔性纤维镜的支持,该设备可能是处理困难气道的有用替代方法。

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