...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of anesthesia: Journal canadien d'anesthesie >Comparison of a single-use GlideScope Cobalt videolaryngoscope with a conventional GlideScope for orotracheal intubation.
【24h】

Comparison of a single-use GlideScope Cobalt videolaryngoscope with a conventional GlideScope for orotracheal intubation.

机译:一次性GlideScope钴视频喉镜与常规GlideScope用于气管插管的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: This study was conceived to compare the single-use GlideScope Cobalt videolaryngoscope with the conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation, as judged by time to intubation (TTI) and ease of intubation. METHODS: One hundred patients with normal-appearing airways requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to have their tracheas intubated by a heterogeneous group of operators with the Cobalt GlideScope or the conventional GlideScope. TTI was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the start of laryngoscopy. A visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, and fogging of the video screen were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference between the median TTI of the GlideScope Cobalt and the conventional GlideScope (40.1 sec, interquartile range [IQR] 34.1, 51.3 vs 39 sec, IQR 32.6, 48.1, respectively; P = 0.75). The ease of intubation was similar between the two devices (median Cobalt VAS: 16 mm, IQR 10.8, 27.3, vs median conventional VAS: 12.5 mm, IQR 10, 20.5, respectively; P = 0.12). There were no significant differences between the two devices with respect to glottic exposure, intubation attempts, failures, or video screen fogging. CONCLUSIONS: The GlideScope Cobalt has similar performance characteristics compared with the conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscope when used for orotracheal intubation. The two devices can likely be used interchangeably. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00459797.).
机译:背景:本研究旨在比较一次性使用GlideScope钴喉镜与常规GlideScope喉镜经口气管插管时间(TTI)和插管的难易程度来进行气管插管。方法:将一百例出现气道正常,需要进行气管插管进行择期手术的患者随机分配,由一组异质性操作者使用Cobalt GlideScope或常规GlideScope进行气管插管。 TTI由盲人观察者评估。操作者不知情,直到开始喉镜检查。视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估了插管的难易程度。记录插管尝试次数,失败次数,声门坡度和视频屏幕起雾。结果:GlideScope钴的TTI中值与常规GlideScope的中值TTI之间没有差异(分别为40.1秒,四分位间距[IQR] 34.1、51.3与39秒,IQR 32.6、48.1; P = 0.75)。两种设备之间的插管难度相似(钴VAS中位数:16 mm,IQR 10.8,27.3,而常规VAS中位数:分别为12.5 mm,IQR 10,20.5; P = 0.12)。在声门暴露,插管尝试,故障或视频屏幕起雾方面,两种设备之间没有显着差异。结论:当用于气管插管时,GlideScope Cobalt与常规GlideScope喉镜相比具有相似的性能特征。这两个设备可能可以互换使用。 (ClinicalTrials.gov编号,NCT00459797。)。

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