...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of anesthesia: Journal canadien d'anesthesie >Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison of Shikani Optical Stylet vs Macintosh laryngoscope.
【24h】

Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison of Shikani Optical Stylet vs Macintosh laryngoscope.

机译:颈椎运动:Shikani Optical Stylet与Macintosh喉镜的荧光镜比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

PURPOSE: The optimal technique to manage the airway in patients presenting with a potential or documented cervical spine (C-spine) injury remains unresolved. Using fluoroscopic video assessment, C-spine motion during laryngoscopy with a Shikani Optical Stylet (SOS) was compared to C-spine motion during intubation using a Macintosh blade. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy surgical patients gave written consent to participate in a crossover randomized controlled trial; all patients were subjected to both Macintosh and Shikani laryngoscopy with manual inline stabilization following induction of anesthesia. The C-spine motion was examined at four areas: the occiput-C1 junction, C1-C2 junction, C2-C5 motion segment, and C5-thoracic motion segment. The time required for laryngoscopy was also measured (duration > 120 sec was deemed a failure of the laryngoscopy technique). RESULTS: On average, C-spine motion was 52% less (P < 0.02) at three of the motion segments studied, occiput-C1, C2-C5, and C5-thoracic when comparing SOS vs Macintosh laryngoscopy. There was no difference between techniques at the C1-C2 segment. Laryngoscopy with SOS (28 +/- 17 sec) took longer than with Macintosh blade (17 +/- 7 sec), P < 0.01. There were two failures out of 23 using the SOS, vs none with the Macintosh blade.Conclusion: For patients in whom C-spine movement is undesirable, use of the SOS may limit neck movement, while modestly increasing the time required to intubate, and/or the risk of procedure failure.
机译:目的:对存在潜在或有记录的颈椎(C-spine)损伤的患者进行气道管理的最佳技术仍未解决。使用荧光镜评估,将使用Shikani Optical Stylet(SOS)进行喉镜检查时的C脊柱运动与使用Macintosh刀片进行的插管过程中的C脊柱运动进行了比较。方法:二十四名健康的外科手术患者书面同意参加一项交叉随机对照试验。麻醉诱导后,所有患者均接受了Macintosh和Shikani喉镜检查,并进行了手动在线稳定。在四个区域检查了C脊柱运动:枕骨C1交界处,C1-C2交界处,C2-C5运动段和C5胸廓运动段。还测量了喉镜检查所需的时间(持续时间> 120秒被认为是喉镜检查技术的失败)。结果:在比较SOS和Macintosh喉镜检查时,在研究的三个运动部分(枕骨C1,C2-C5和C5-胸腔)中,C脊柱运动平均减少了52%(P <0.02)。 C1-C2段的技术之间没有差异。 SOS(28 +/- 17秒)的喉镜检查时间比Macintosh刀片(17 +/- 7秒)更长,P <0.01。使用SOS的23例中有2例失败,而使用Macintosh刀片的2例均没有。结论:对于不希望C脊柱运动的患者,使用SOS可能会限制颈部运动,同时适度增加插管所需的时间,并且/或程序失败的风险。

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