Comparative study of the difficulty of endotracheal intubation in sniffing and 25-degree backup positions

G. Ibrahem
{"title":"Comparative study of the difficulty of endotracheal intubation in sniffing and 25-degree backup positions","authors":"G. Ibrahem","doi":"10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-2-52-55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The endotracheal intubation procedure is integral to modern medicine and essential to emergency care, surgical practice and intensive care procedures.The objective was to evaluate the effect of the 25° backup position on glottic view and difficulty of intubation compared to the sniffing position in adult patients receiving general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubationMaterials and methods. The comparative clinical study was conducted in Al-Hussain Military Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq during the period from 1st of January 2022 to 1st of January 2023. A convenient sample of 150 patients who aged 18–60 years, were classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists as I or II, and underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia was included in this study. These patients were allocated into two groups. Group A consisted of 75 patients who were anaesthetized in the sniffing position. Group B consisted of 75 patients who were anaesthetized in 25° backup position.Results. There was no significant difference between the sniffing position and 25° backup position regarding the number of patients who needed ancillary manoeuvres and ancillary equipment (P-values were 0.583 and 0.151, respectively). The glottic view was significantly better in the 25° backup position than the sniffing position according to the Cormack–Lehane (p = 0.001) with a significantly lower difficulty in intubation according to the intubation difficulty scale (p = 0.008).Conclusion. The 25° backup position is better than the sniffing position in glottic visualization, the difficulty of intubation and the time of intubation. Age, gender, and body mass index have no significant effects on the visualization of the glottis between the 25° backup position and the sniffing position. There was no significant difference between two regarding the number of patients who needed ancillary manoeuvres and ancillary equipment. The glottic view is significantly better in the 25° backup position than sniffing position according to the Cormack–Lehane. The mean of the time of intubation is lower in the 25° backup position compared to the sniffing position.","PeriodicalId":506088,"journal":{"name":"Messenger of ANESTHESIOLOGY AND RESUSCITATION","volume":"171 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Messenger of ANESTHESIOLOGY AND RESUSCITATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-2-52-55","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

Introduction. The endotracheal intubation procedure is integral to modern medicine and essential to emergency care, surgical practice and intensive care procedures.The objective was to evaluate the effect of the 25° backup position on glottic view and difficulty of intubation compared to the sniffing position in adult patients receiving general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubationMaterials and methods. The comparative clinical study was conducted in Al-Hussain Military Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq during the period from 1st of January 2022 to 1st of January 2023. A convenient sample of 150 patients who aged 18–60 years, were classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists as I or II, and underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia was included in this study. These patients were allocated into two groups. Group A consisted of 75 patients who were anaesthetized in the sniffing position. Group B consisted of 75 patients who were anaesthetized in 25° backup position.Results. There was no significant difference between the sniffing position and 25° backup position regarding the number of patients who needed ancillary manoeuvres and ancillary equipment (P-values were 0.583 and 0.151, respectively). The glottic view was significantly better in the 25° backup position than the sniffing position according to the Cormack–Lehane (p = 0.001) with a significantly lower difficulty in intubation according to the intubation difficulty scale (p = 0.008).Conclusion. The 25° backup position is better than the sniffing position in glottic visualization, the difficulty of intubation and the time of intubation. Age, gender, and body mass index have no significant effects on the visualization of the glottis between the 25° backup position and the sniffing position. There was no significant difference between two regarding the number of patients who needed ancillary manoeuvres and ancillary equipment. The glottic view is significantly better in the 25° backup position than sniffing position according to the Cormack–Lehane. The mean of the time of intubation is lower in the 25° backup position compared to the sniffing position.
嗅觉体位和 25 度后备体位下气管插管难度的比较研究
简介气管插管程序是现代医学不可或缺的一部分,也是急救护理、外科手术和重症监护程序中必不可少的程序。研究目的是评估在接受气管插管全身麻醉的成年患者中,25°后备体位与嗅觉体位相比对声门视野和插管难度的影响。比较临床研究于 2022 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 1 月 1 日期间在伊拉克巴格达的 Al-Hussain 军医院进行。本研究抽取了 150 名年龄在 18-60 岁之间、根据美国麻醉医师协会分类为 I 级或 II 级、在全身麻醉下接受择期手术的患者作为样本。这些患者被分为两组。A 组包括 75 名以嗅觉体位进行麻醉的患者。B 组 75 名患者采用 25°后备体位进行麻醉。在需要辅助操作和辅助设备的患者人数方面,嗅觉体位和 25° 备用体位没有明显差异(P 值分别为 0.583 和 0.151)。根据 Cormack-Lehane 体位,25°后备体位的声门视野明显优于嗅觉体位(P = 0.001),根据插管难度量表,插管难度明显降低(P = 0.008)。25°后备体位在声门视野、插管难度和插管时间方面均优于嗅觉体位。年龄、性别和体重指数对 25°后备体位和嗅觉体位的声门可视度没有显著影响。在需要辅助操作和辅助设备的患者人数方面,两者之间没有明显差异。根据 Cormack-Lehane 标准,25°后备体位的声门视野明显优于嗅觉体位。与嗅觉体位相比,25°后备体位的平均插管时间更短。
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