Comparative evaluation of conventional to left molar and right molar laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation

Shivani Gajpal, Sandeep Savitaprakash Sharma, S. ., L. Raiger
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of conventional to left molar and right molar laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation","authors":"Shivani Gajpal, Sandeep Savitaprakash Sharma, S. ., L. Raiger","doi":"10.33545/26649268.2020.v2.i1a.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background : Difficulty in visualizing the glottis may cause difficulty, even failure in endotracheal intubation leading to catastrophes. Difficult laryngoscopy is frequently overcome by using molar approach for laryngoscopy combined with optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM). The present study was planned to compare conventional midline approach of laryngoscopy to left molar and right molar approach of laryngoccopy (using Macintosh blade) for endotracheal intubation Material and Methods : This prospective randomized double blind controlled study was conducted on 120 patients of 18-60 years age, belonging to ASA grade I and II of either sex, posted for elective surgery under general endotracheal anaesthesia. Depending on the approach of laryngoscopy used, the patients were randomly divided into three groups of 40 each into Group M (midline approach), Group L (left molar approach) and Group R (right molar approach). Predictors of difficult intubation (Modified Mallampati grading, Thyromental distance, abnormal Dentition) and their association with unsuccessful intubation, Cormack Lehane grading, attempts of intubation, duration of intubation, success rate of intubation, adjuvant measures needed (stylet, retraction of mouth","PeriodicalId":322811,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Anesthesiology Sciences","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Anesthesiology Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33545/26649268.2020.v2.i1a.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background : Difficulty in visualizing the glottis may cause difficulty, even failure in endotracheal intubation leading to catastrophes. Difficult laryngoscopy is frequently overcome by using molar approach for laryngoscopy combined with optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM). The present study was planned to compare conventional midline approach of laryngoscopy to left molar and right molar approach of laryngoccopy (using Macintosh blade) for endotracheal intubation Material and Methods : This prospective randomized double blind controlled study was conducted on 120 patients of 18-60 years age, belonging to ASA grade I and II of either sex, posted for elective surgery under general endotracheal anaesthesia. Depending on the approach of laryngoscopy used, the patients were randomly divided into three groups of 40 each into Group M (midline approach), Group L (left molar approach) and Group R (right molar approach). Predictors of difficult intubation (Modified Mallampati grading, Thyromental distance, abnormal Dentition) and their association with unsuccessful intubation, Cormack Lehane grading, attempts of intubation, duration of intubation, success rate of intubation, adjuvant measures needed (stylet, retraction of mouth
常规与左磨牙、右磨牙喉镜及气管插管的比较评价
背景:声门显像困难可能导致气管插管困难,甚至失败,导致灾难。困难的喉镜检查经常克服磨牙入路喉镜检查结合最佳喉外操作(OELM)。本研究拟比较常规喉镜中线入路与喉镜左磨牙入路、右磨牙入路(使用Macintosh刀片)气管插管的效果。材料和方法:本前瞻性随机双盲对照研究纳入120例患者,年龄18-60岁,男女均为ASA I级和II级,在气管内全身麻醉下择期手术。根据采用喉镜入路的不同,将患者随机分为三组,每组40人,分别为M组(中线入路)、L组(左磨牙入路)和R组(右磨牙入路)。插管困难的预测因素(改良Mallampati分级、甲状腺距离、牙列异常)及其与插管失败、Cormack Lehane分级、插管次数、插管持续时间、插管成功率、所需辅助措施(管柄、口内缩回)的关系
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信