A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope during nasotracheal intubation: A randomised controlled study.

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY
Alekhya Gangishetty, Nirmala Jonnavithula, Singam Geetha, Harshini Muthyala, Hareesh Peetha
{"title":"A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope during nasotracheal intubation: A randomised controlled study.","authors":"Alekhya Gangishetty, Nirmala Jonnavithula, Singam Geetha, Harshini Muthyala, Hareesh Peetha","doi":"10.1177/17504589241270202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasotracheal intubation is challenging for anaesthesiologists in faciomaxillary injuries due to the anticipated difficult airways. The effectiveness of a non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope was compared with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope during nasotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty American Society of Anaesthesiologists I-II patients aged between 18 and 60 years of both sexes undergoing elective faciomaxillary surgeries from September 2019 to February 2020 were prospectively randomised into two groups (Macintosh laryngoscope Group, McGrath video laryngoscope Group) of 30. The primary outcome was ease of intubation (Modified Intubation Difficulty Scale) and Nasotracheal intubation time (T1 time: from nostril to nasopharynx, T2 time: from nasopharynx until the first ETCO2, total time: T1 + T2). The secondary outcomes were Cormac Lehane grade, additional manoeuvres requirement, intubation failure, tracheostomy incidence and associated complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>T1, T2 and total (T1 + T2) time (mean ± <i>SD</i>) were statistically prolonged in the McGrath video laryngoscope than Macintosh laryngoscope group, with p = 0.044, p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively. The McGrath video laryngoscope facilitated a better laryngoscopic view (p = 0.002), favourable intubation difficulty scale scores, less lifting force (p = 0.002), reduced lip trauma (p = 0.002) and decreased Magill's forceps use (p = 0.002) than the Macintosh laryngoscope group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite longer intubation time, the non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope offered favourable intubating conditions with superior glottis view, less lifting force and reduced Magill's forceps requirement, causing decreased airway trauma, lower intubation difficulty scale scores than Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":35481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of perioperative practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of perioperative practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589241270202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nasotracheal intubation is challenging for anaesthesiologists in faciomaxillary injuries due to the anticipated difficult airways. The effectiveness of a non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope was compared with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope during nasotracheal intubation.

Methods: Sixty American Society of Anaesthesiologists I-II patients aged between 18 and 60 years of both sexes undergoing elective faciomaxillary surgeries from September 2019 to February 2020 were prospectively randomised into two groups (Macintosh laryngoscope Group, McGrath video laryngoscope Group) of 30. The primary outcome was ease of intubation (Modified Intubation Difficulty Scale) and Nasotracheal intubation time (T1 time: from nostril to nasopharynx, T2 time: from nasopharynx until the first ETCO2, total time: T1 + T2). The secondary outcomes were Cormac Lehane grade, additional manoeuvres requirement, intubation failure, tracheostomy incidence and associated complications.

Results: T1, T2 and total (T1 + T2) time (mean ± SD) were statistically prolonged in the McGrath video laryngoscope than Macintosh laryngoscope group, with p = 0.044, p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively. The McGrath video laryngoscope facilitated a better laryngoscopic view (p = 0.002), favourable intubation difficulty scale scores, less lifting force (p = 0.002), reduced lip trauma (p = 0.002) and decreased Magill's forceps use (p = 0.002) than the Macintosh laryngoscope group.

Conclusion: Despite longer intubation time, the non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope offered favourable intubating conditions with superior glottis view, less lifting force and reduced Magill's forceps requirement, causing decreased airway trauma, lower intubation difficulty scale scores than Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.

鼻气管插管过程中麦格视频喉镜与麦金塔喉镜的比较:随机对照研究。
背景:由于预计会出现困难气道,鼻气管插管对于面颌面损伤的麻醉医生来说具有挑战性。在鼻气管插管过程中,比较了无通道麦格视频喉镜和传统麦金塔喉镜的效果:在2019年9月至2020年2月期间,60名年龄在18至60岁之间、接受择期面颌面手术的美国麻醉医师协会I-II级男女患者被前瞻性地随机分为两组(Macintosh喉镜组、McGrath视频喉镜组),每组30人。主要结果是插管难易度(改良插管难度量表)和鼻气管插管时间(T1 时间:从鼻孔到鼻咽,T2 时间:从鼻咽到第一次 ETCO2,总时间:T1 + T2)。次要结果为 Cormac Lehane 分级、所需额外操作、插管失败、气管切开发生率和相关并发症:麦格视频喉镜组的 T1、T2 和总时间(T1 + T2)(平均值±标度)均比麦金托什喉镜组长,分别为 p = 0.044、p = 0.000 和 p = 0.000。与 Macintosh 喉镜组相比,McGrath 视频喉镜有助于获得更好的喉镜视野(p = 0.002)、更有利的插管难度量表评分、更少的上提力(p = 0.002)、更少的唇部创伤(p = 0.002)和更少的马吉尔镊子使用(p = 0.002):结论:尽管插管时间较长,但与麦金托什喉镜相比,无通道麦格视频喉镜提供了有利的插管条件,声门视野更好,提升力更小,减少了对马吉尔镊子的需求,减少了气道创伤,降低了鼻气管插管难度量表评分。
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
Journal of perioperative practice
Journal of perioperative practice Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perioperative Practice (JPP) is the official journal of the Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). It is an international, peer reviewed journal with a multidisciplinary ethos across all aspects of perioperative care. The overall aim of the journal is to improve patient safety through informing and developing practice. It is an informative professional journal which provides current evidence-based practice, clinical, management and educational developments for practitioners working in the perioperative environment. The journal promotes perioperative practice by publishing clinical research-based articles, literature reviews, topical discussions, advice on clinical issues, current news items and product information.
×
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