评估使用视频喉镜进行气管插管的学习曲线:年轻麻醉科住院医师对 McGrathMAC、UESCOPE 和 Airtraq 的学习曲线评估 - 随机、对照、盲法交叉研究。

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S486331
Pawel Ratajczyk, Przemyslaw Kluj, Krzysztof Wasiak, Jeremi Strzalek, Karolina Kolodziejska, Tomasz Gaszynski
{"title":"评估使用视频喉镜进行气管插管的学习曲线:年轻麻醉科住院医师对 McGrathMAC、UESCOPE 和 Airtraq 的学习曲线评估 - 随机、对照、盲法交叉研究。","authors":"Pawel Ratajczyk, Przemyslaw Kluj, Krzysztof Wasiak, Jeremi Strzalek, Karolina Kolodziejska, Tomasz Gaszynski","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S486331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Videolaryngoscopes increased the safety of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. Their particular beneficiaries are healthcare providers inexperienced in intubation. We compared the learning curve of McGrath, UESCOPE, and Airtraq VLs among the first-year anesthesiology residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen residents were qualified for the study, none of whom has ever before used any VL nor had any experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The study was conducted during anesthesia without anticipated intubation difficulties and included 288 adult patients with BMI <25 and ASA ≤ II, without visible intubation difficulties. It was a randomized, controlled, and blinded crossover study. Each resident performed six intubations with a given VL in randomized order.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. In McGrath there was observed significant improvement of intubation time, confirmed intubation time, ease, POGO scale, effective intubation, thyroid pressure application, and intubation trauma. Intubation efficacy increased from 12 (75%) at first attempt, to 16 (100%) during third and following attempts. Residents used pressure 6 times (38%) during first attempt and 7 times (44%) during second attempt, and 1 (6%) at last attempt. McGrath traumatism was noticed in 4 (25%) patients at first two attempts, none during third and following attempts. In Airtraq, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, ease, effective intubation, and application of pressure to thyroid cartilage. Intubation efficacy increased from 10 (62%) during the first to 16 (100%) during the following attempts. Thyroid pressure was applied 7 times (44%) during first intubation and 0 times during the last two attempts. In the case of UESCOPE VL, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, and ease.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results demonstrated that Airtraq VL having the best learning curve, and UESCOPE having the best first-time use. The results require confirmation in a larger study group. This study was approved on 14 November 2023 by the Medical University of Lodz Bioethics Committee (ref: RNN/160/23/KE).</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"15 ","pages":"1299-1312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11682673/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.\",\"authors\":\"Pawel Ratajczyk, Przemyslaw Kluj, Krzysztof Wasiak, Jeremi Strzalek, Karolina Kolodziejska, Tomasz Gaszynski\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/AMEP.S486331\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Videolaryngoscopes increased the safety of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. Their particular beneficiaries are healthcare providers inexperienced in intubation. We compared the learning curve of McGrath, UESCOPE, and Airtraq VLs among the first-year anesthesiology residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen residents were qualified for the study, none of whom has ever before used any VL nor had any experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The study was conducted during anesthesia without anticipated intubation difficulties and included 288 adult patients with BMI <25 and ASA ≤ II, without visible intubation difficulties. It was a randomized, controlled, and blinded crossover study. Each resident performed six intubations with a given VL in randomized order.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. In McGrath there was observed significant improvement of intubation time, confirmed intubation time, ease, POGO scale, effective intubation, thyroid pressure application, and intubation trauma. Intubation efficacy increased from 12 (75%) at first attempt, to 16 (100%) during third and following attempts. Residents used pressure 6 times (38%) during first attempt and 7 times (44%) during second attempt, and 1 (6%) at last attempt. McGrath traumatism was noticed in 4 (25%) patients at first two attempts, none during third and following attempts. In Airtraq, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, ease, effective intubation, and application of pressure to thyroid cartilage. Intubation efficacy increased from 10 (62%) during the first to 16 (100%) during the following attempts. Thyroid pressure was applied 7 times (44%) during first intubation and 0 times during the last two attempts. In the case of UESCOPE VL, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, and ease.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results demonstrated that Airtraq VL having the best learning curve, and UESCOPE having the best first-time use. The results require confirmation in a larger study group. This study was approved on 14 November 2023 by the Medical University of Lodz Bioethics Committee (ref: RNN/160/23/KE).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Medical Education and Practice\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"1299-1312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11682673/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Medical Education and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S486331\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S486331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Endotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopes: McGrathMAC, UESCOPE, and Airtraq by Young Anesthesiology Residents - Randomized, Controlled, Blinded Crossover Study.

Background: Videolaryngoscopes increased the safety of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. Their particular beneficiaries are healthcare providers inexperienced in intubation. We compared the learning curve of McGrath, UESCOPE, and Airtraq VLs among the first-year anesthesiology residents.

Methods: Sixteen residents were qualified for the study, none of whom has ever before used any VL nor had any experience with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The study was conducted during anesthesia without anticipated intubation difficulties and included 288 adult patients with BMI <25 and ASA ≤ II, without visible intubation difficulties. It was a randomized, controlled, and blinded crossover study. Each resident performed six intubations with a given VL in randomized order.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics. In McGrath there was observed significant improvement of intubation time, confirmed intubation time, ease, POGO scale, effective intubation, thyroid pressure application, and intubation trauma. Intubation efficacy increased from 12 (75%) at first attempt, to 16 (100%) during third and following attempts. Residents used pressure 6 times (38%) during first attempt and 7 times (44%) during second attempt, and 1 (6%) at last attempt. McGrath traumatism was noticed in 4 (25%) patients at first two attempts, none during third and following attempts. In Airtraq, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, ease, effective intubation, and application of pressure to thyroid cartilage. Intubation efficacy increased from 10 (62%) during the first to 16 (100%) during the following attempts. Thyroid pressure was applied 7 times (44%) during first intubation and 0 times during the last two attempts. In the case of UESCOPE VL, we observed a significant improvement of intubation time, time of confirmed intubation, force used, and ease.

Conclusion: Results demonstrated that Airtraq VL having the best learning curve, and UESCOPE having the best first-time use. The results require confirmation in a larger study group. This study was approved on 14 November 2023 by the Medical University of Lodz Bioethics Committee (ref: RNN/160/23/KE).

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
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 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