Success rate of endotracheal intubation: A comparison of direct laryngoscopy and intubating laryngeal mask airway

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Usman Nasir, Salahu Dalhat, M. Atiku, A. Mustapha, Adesope Saheed, Ahmad Adam, A. Mohammad, Ahmed Ado
{"title":"Success rate of endotracheal intubation: A comparison of direct laryngoscopy and intubating laryngeal mask airway","authors":"Usman Nasir, Salahu Dalhat, M. Atiku, A. Mustapha, Adesope Saheed, Ahmad Adam, A. Mohammad, Ahmed Ado","doi":"10.4103/njbcs.njbcs_70_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Direct laryngoscopy (DL) remains the most popular method of endotracheal intubation despite the availability of easier methods like intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA)—a blind intubation aid with a high success rate of intubation even when employed by novices. Aim: This study compared the overall success rate of intubation using ILMA and DL during elective surgeries requiring intubation. Study Design: This was a comparative randomized study. Patients and Methods: Following the institutional ethical approval, 86 American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status (ASA) I and II patients were randomized into DL and ILMA groups. Each received intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg, glycopyrrolate 4 μg/kg, intravenous propofol 3 mg/kg, suxamethonium 2 mg/kg to a maximum of 100 mg. Intubation was with DL in the first group and ILMA in the second group. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and muscle relaxation with atracurium. The overall success rate, the success rate at the first attempt of intubation, time for intubation, and airway complications were assessed. Statistical analysis: Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. The quantitative variables were analyzed using the Student's t-test and qualitative using the Chi-square test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The success at insertion was 100% in the DL group and 95.3% with ILMA at the first attempt (P = 0.15). The success rate of intubation at the first attempt was 100 and 79.1% in the DL and ILMA groups, respectively. The mean time for intubation was 19.93 ± 6.17 and 46.54 ± 11.63 s in DL and ILMA, respectively (P = 0.001). Six patients (14%) had airway complications in the ILMA group. Conclusion: The overall success rate of intubation via ILMA is comparable to that of DL. In patients with normal airways, DL remains a comparatively faster and easier technique to secure the airway with tracheal intubation than ILMA.","PeriodicalId":19224,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences","volume":"33 1","pages":"34 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njbcs.njbcs_70_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Direct laryngoscopy (DL) remains the most popular method of endotracheal intubation despite the availability of easier methods like intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA)—a blind intubation aid with a high success rate of intubation even when employed by novices. Aim: This study compared the overall success rate of intubation using ILMA and DL during elective surgeries requiring intubation. Study Design: This was a comparative randomized study. Patients and Methods: Following the institutional ethical approval, 86 American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status (ASA) I and II patients were randomized into DL and ILMA groups. Each received intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg, glycopyrrolate 4 μg/kg, intravenous propofol 3 mg/kg, suxamethonium 2 mg/kg to a maximum of 100 mg. Intubation was with DL in the first group and ILMA in the second group. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and muscle relaxation with atracurium. The overall success rate, the success rate at the first attempt of intubation, time for intubation, and airway complications were assessed. Statistical analysis: Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. The quantitative variables were analyzed using the Student's t-test and qualitative using the Chi-square test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The success at insertion was 100% in the DL group and 95.3% with ILMA at the first attempt (P = 0.15). The success rate of intubation at the first attempt was 100 and 79.1% in the DL and ILMA groups, respectively. The mean time for intubation was 19.93 ± 6.17 and 46.54 ± 11.63 s in DL and ILMA, respectively (P = 0.001). Six patients (14%) had airway complications in the ILMA group. Conclusion: The overall success rate of intubation via ILMA is comparable to that of DL. In patients with normal airways, DL remains a comparatively faster and easier technique to secure the airway with tracheal intubation than ILMA.
气管插管的成功率:直接喉镜与喉罩气管插管的比较
背景:直接喉镜(DL)仍然是最流行的气管内插管方法,尽管有更简单的方法,如插管喉罩气道(ILMA) -一种盲插管辅助,即使是新手使用,插管成功率也很高。目的:本研究比较了在需要插管的择期手术中使用ILMA和DL插管的总体成功率。研究设计:这是一项比较随机研究。患者和方法:根据机构伦理批准,86例美国麻醉医师协会身体状况(ASA) I和II患者随机分为DL和ILMA组。每人静脉注射芬太尼2 μg/kg,甘罗酸酯4 μg/kg,异丙酚3 mg/kg,磺胺硫铵2 mg/kg,最多100 mg。第一组插管DL,第二组插管ILMA。异氟醚维持麻醉,阿曲库铵松弛肌肉。评估总成功率、首次插管成功率、插管时间及气道并发症。统计分析:使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS) 21.0版对数据进行分析。定量变量采用学生t检验,定性变量采用卡方检验。P值小于0.05为显著性。结果:DL组植针成功率为100%,ILMA组植针成功率为95.3% (P = 0.15)。DL组和ILMA组首次插管成功率分别为100%和79.1%。DL组平均插管时间为19.93±6.17 s, ILMA组平均插管时间为46.54±11.63 s (P = 0.001)。ILMA组有6例(14%)患者出现气道并发症。结论:ILMA插管与DL插管的总体成功率相当。在气道正常的患者中,与ILMA相比,DL仍然是一种相对更快、更容易的气管插管技术。
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
Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences
Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
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