Tracheal intubation with GlideScope vs. Sanyar video laryngoscopes in adults with predicted difficult intubation: a non-inferiority clinical trial.

IF 1.7 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Mohammadreza Khajavi, Reza Kazeroni, Razieh Ramezani, Azam Biderafsh, Parisa Kianpour, Mohamadreza Neishaboury
{"title":"Tracheal intubation with GlideScope vs. Sanyar video laryngoscopes in adults with predicted difficult intubation: a non-inferiority clinical trial.","authors":"Mohammadreza Khajavi, Reza Kazeroni, Razieh Ramezani, Azam Biderafsh, Parisa Kianpour, Mohamadreza Neishaboury","doi":"10.5114/ait/200292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Maintaining control over the airway is critical during general anesthesia induction, particularly in patients with anticipated difficult airways. Video laryngoscopy with various devices has emerged as a valuable tool in such scenarios and has shown promising performance. This study aimed to evaluate glottic visualization and the first attempt success rate of tracheal intubation of GlideScope and Sanyar video laryngo- scopes in adult patients with predicted difficult intubation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A randomized, controlled, two-armed, parallel clinical trial was conducted, in adult patients with anticipated difficult intubation undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Participants were randomly assigned to either the GlideScope or Sanyar group. The primary outcome was the success rate of intubation in the first attempt at laryngoscopy, and secondary outcomes were the duration of intubation, glottic visualization, blood pressure and heart rate after intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 93 patients were included in the analysis, with 46 in the S group and 47 in the G group. The S group demonstrated a significantly higher first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation (93.4% vs. 85.2%; <i>P</i> = 0.002) and shorter intubation time (29.28 ± 8.00 seconds vs. 42.73 ± 15.50 seconds; <i>P</i> = 0.0001) compared to the G group. Glottic visualization and hemodynamic changes did not significantly differ between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Sanyar video laryngoscope exhibited superior efficacy in terms of first-attempt tracheal intubation success and shorter intubation time compared to the GlideScope in adult patients with predicted difficult airways. These findings suggest that the Sanyar video laryngoscope may serve as a valuable alternative in challenging intubation scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"57 1","pages":"80-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait/200292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Maintaining control over the airway is critical during general anesthesia induction, particularly in patients with anticipated difficult airways. Video laryngoscopy with various devices has emerged as a valuable tool in such scenarios and has shown promising performance. This study aimed to evaluate glottic visualization and the first attempt success rate of tracheal intubation of GlideScope and Sanyar video laryngo- scopes in adult patients with predicted difficult intubation.

Material and methods: A randomized, controlled, two-armed, parallel clinical trial was conducted, in adult patients with anticipated difficult intubation undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Participants were randomly assigned to either the GlideScope or Sanyar group. The primary outcome was the success rate of intubation in the first attempt at laryngoscopy, and secondary outcomes were the duration of intubation, glottic visualization, blood pressure and heart rate after intubation.

Results: A total of 93 patients were included in the analysis, with 46 in the S group and 47 in the G group. The S group demonstrated a significantly higher first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation (93.4% vs. 85.2%; P = 0.002) and shorter intubation time (29.28 ± 8.00 seconds vs. 42.73 ± 15.50 seconds; P = 0.0001) compared to the G group. Glottic visualization and hemodynamic changes did not significantly differ between the two groups.

Conclusions: The Sanyar video laryngoscope exhibited superior efficacy in terms of first-attempt tracheal intubation success and shorter intubation time compared to the GlideScope in adult patients with predicted difficult airways. These findings suggest that the Sanyar video laryngoscope may serve as a valuable alternative in challenging intubation scenarios.

GlideScope与Sanyar视频喉镜对预测插管困难的成人气管插管:一项非劣效性临床试验。
导读:在全麻诱导过程中,保持对气道的控制是至关重要的,特别是在预期气道困难的患者中。在这种情况下,各种设备的视频喉镜检查已成为一种有价值的工具,并显示出良好的性能。本研究旨在评估GlideScope和Sanyar视频喉镜在预测气管插管困难的成人患者中的声门显像和首次插管成功率。材料与方法:随机、对照、双臂、平行临床试验,对全身麻醉下预期插管困难的择期手术成人患者进行研究。参与者被随机分配到GlideScope组或Sanyar组。主要观察指标为喉镜第一次插管成功率,次要观察指标为插管时间、声门显像、插管后血压和心率。结果:共纳入93例患者,其中S组46例,G组47例。S组首次气管插管成功率明显高于S组(93.4% vs. 85.2%;P = 0.002),插管时间较短(29.28±8.00秒vs. 42.73±15.50秒);P = 0.0001)。两组间声门显像和血流动力学变化无显著差异。结论:在预测气道困难的成人患者中,与GlideScope相比,Sanyar视频喉镜在首次气管插管成功率和更短的插管时间方面具有优越的疗效。这些发现表明,Sanyar视频喉镜可以作为一种有价值的替代方案,在具有挑战性的插管情况。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信