在模拟颈部活动受限的患者中比较米勒刀片的舌侧插入技术与麦考伊和麦金托什成人喉镜的 Cormack-Lehane 等级--随机对照试验

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anusha S Kalsad, Gayatri Mishra, Sripriya R., Yasha V Kameshwar, H. Vr
{"title":"在模拟颈部活动受限的患者中比较米勒刀片的舌侧插入技术与麦考伊和麦金托什成人喉镜的 Cormack-Lehane 等级--随机对照试验","authors":"Anusha S Kalsad, Gayatri Mishra, Sripriya R., Yasha V Kameshwar, H. Vr","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1782505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background The paucity in round-the-clock availability of advanced tools like flexible bronchoscopes and video laryngoscopes makes it preferable to have alternative easily available gadgets for securing the airway in patients with cervical spine injuries where head and neck movements must be strictly avoided. This study compared the paraglossal technique of Miller blade insertion with the McCoy and Macintosh laryngoscope blades on the Cormack and Lehane grading (CLG) in patients with simulated restricted neck mobility.\n Methods We randomized 90 patients undergoing general anesthesia to be intubated either using Miller blade (Group-Mill), McCoy blade (Group-McCoy), or Macintosh blade (Group-Mac) following neck restriction using a soft cervical collar. CLG grade, the number of intubation attempts, use of bougie, intubation time, and hemodynamic parameters were noted. Nonparametric data were compared using the chi-squared test and parametric data using one-way analysis of variance.\n Results Group-MILL had significantly higher patients with Grade-1 CLG compared to Group-Mac (p = 0.02). The number of attempts, use of bougie, and intubation time were, however, comparable among the three groups. The hemodynamic parameters at intubation were not significantly different among the groups.\n Conclusion In adult patients with simulated restricted neck, the Miller laryngoscope blade, despite providing a better laryngeal view, showed no benefit in decreasing the intubation time when compared to the McCoy or Macintosh blades.","PeriodicalId":16574,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Paraglossal Technique of Miller Blade Insertion with McCoy and Macintosh Adult Laryngoscopes on the Cormack–Lehane Grade in Patients with Simulated Restricted Neck Mobility—A Randomized Control Trial\",\"authors\":\"Anusha S Kalsad, Gayatri Mishra, Sripriya R., Yasha V Kameshwar, H. Vr\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1782505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background The paucity in round-the-clock availability of advanced tools like flexible bronchoscopes and video laryngoscopes makes it preferable to have alternative easily available gadgets for securing the airway in patients with cervical spine injuries where head and neck movements must be strictly avoided. This study compared the paraglossal technique of Miller blade insertion with the McCoy and Macintosh laryngoscope blades on the Cormack and Lehane grading (CLG) in patients with simulated restricted neck mobility.\\n Methods We randomized 90 patients undergoing general anesthesia to be intubated either using Miller blade (Group-Mill), McCoy blade (Group-McCoy), or Macintosh blade (Group-Mac) following neck restriction using a soft cervical collar. CLG grade, the number of intubation attempts, use of bougie, intubation time, and hemodynamic parameters were noted. Nonparametric data were compared using the chi-squared test and parametric data using one-way analysis of variance.\\n Results Group-MILL had significantly higher patients with Grade-1 CLG compared to Group-Mac (p = 0.02). The number of attempts, use of bougie, and intubation time were, however, comparable among the three groups. The hemodynamic parameters at intubation were not significantly different among the groups.\\n Conclusion In adult patients with simulated restricted neck, the Miller laryngoscope blade, despite providing a better laryngeal view, showed no benefit in decreasing the intubation time when compared to the McCoy or Macintosh blades.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782505\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 柔性支气管镜和视频喉镜等先进工具缺乏全天候可用性,因此,在颈椎损伤患者头颈部运动必须严格避免的情况下,最好有其他易于使用的工具来保护气道。本研究在模拟颈部活动受限的患者中,比较了米勒刀片插入舌旁技术与 Cormack 和 Lehane 分级(CLG)上的 McCoy 和 Macintosh 喉镜刀片。方法 我们随机选取了 90 名接受全身麻醉的患者,在使用软颈圈限制颈部活动后,分别使用 Miller 喉镜刀片(组别-Mill)、McCoy 喉镜刀片(组别-McCoy)或 Macintosh 喉镜刀片(组别-Mac)进行插管。记录了 CLG 分级、插管尝试次数、使用通气导管、插管时间和血液动力学参数。非参数数据采用卡方检验进行比较,参数数据采用单因素方差分析进行比较。结果 与 Mac 组相比,MILL 组的 1 级 CLG 患者明显较多(p = 0.02)。不过,三组的插管尝试次数、使用通气导管和插管时间相当。各组插管时的血液动力学参数无明显差异。结论 在模拟颈部受限的成人患者中,尽管米勒喉镜刀片能提供更好的喉部视野,但与麦考伊或麦金托什刀片相比,在缩短插管时间方面并无优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Paraglossal Technique of Miller Blade Insertion with McCoy and Macintosh Adult Laryngoscopes on the Cormack–Lehane Grade in Patients with Simulated Restricted Neck Mobility—A Randomized Control Trial
Background The paucity in round-the-clock availability of advanced tools like flexible bronchoscopes and video laryngoscopes makes it preferable to have alternative easily available gadgets for securing the airway in patients with cervical spine injuries where head and neck movements must be strictly avoided. This study compared the paraglossal technique of Miller blade insertion with the McCoy and Macintosh laryngoscope blades on the Cormack and Lehane grading (CLG) in patients with simulated restricted neck mobility. Methods We randomized 90 patients undergoing general anesthesia to be intubated either using Miller blade (Group-Mill), McCoy blade (Group-McCoy), or Macintosh blade (Group-Mac) following neck restriction using a soft cervical collar. CLG grade, the number of intubation attempts, use of bougie, intubation time, and hemodynamic parameters were noted. Nonparametric data were compared using the chi-squared test and parametric data using one-way analysis of variance. Results Group-MILL had significantly higher patients with Grade-1 CLG compared to Group-Mac (p = 0.02). The number of attempts, use of bougie, and intubation time were, however, comparable among the three groups. The hemodynamic parameters at intubation were not significantly different among the groups. Conclusion In adult patients with simulated restricted neck, the Miller laryngoscope blade, despite providing a better laryngeal view, showed no benefit in decreasing the intubation time when compared to the McCoy or Macintosh blades.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
15 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信