BlockBuster®喉罩气道、King Vision®视频喉镜和柔性插管镜用于模拟固定颈椎成人患者经气管插管的比较:一项随机对照试验。

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_509_24
Neha Sinha, Kharat Bhat, Samiksha Khanuja, Mahima Gupta, Megha Wadhwani, Pratibha Panjiar
{"title":"BlockBuster®喉罩气道、King Vision®视频喉镜和柔性插管镜用于模拟固定颈椎成人患者经气管插管的比较:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Neha Sinha, Kharat Bhat, Samiksha Khanuja, Mahima Gupta, Megha Wadhwani, Pratibha Panjiar","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_509_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Flexible intubation scope, video laryngoscope and supraglottic airway device-guided tracheal intubation are suggested in cervical spine injury patients to avoid further exacerbation of cord injury. This study compared the intubation characteristics of BlockBuster laryngeal mask airway (BBLM), King Vision video laryngoscope (KKVL) and flexible intubation scope (FIS) in patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was performed on 120 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation. Patients were randomly allocated to Group BBLM, Group KVVL and Group FIS. Time to intubation, first-attempt success rate and complications were recorded and compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant difference in the mean total time for intubation between the groups (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). The success rate of the first attempt was 75% in Group BBLM, 77% in Group KVVL and 82.5% in Group FIS (<i>P</i> = 0.727). Complications like mucosal damage, oesophageal intubation, and incidence of sore throat and cough were comparable in the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intubation time was faster with BBLM and KVVL than with FIS in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilisation. The first-attempt success rate and complications were the same for all three devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"69 3","pages":"296-301"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11952163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Neha Sinha, Kharat Bhat, Samiksha Khanuja, Mahima Gupta, Megha Wadhwani, Pratibha Panjiar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_509_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Flexible intubation scope, video laryngoscope and supraglottic airway device-guided tracheal intubation are suggested in cervical spine injury patients to avoid further exacerbation of cord injury. This study compared the intubation characteristics of BlockBuster laryngeal mask airway (BBLM), King Vision video laryngoscope (KKVL) and flexible intubation scope (FIS) in patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was performed on 120 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation. Patients were randomly allocated to Group BBLM, Group KVVL and Group FIS. Time to intubation, first-attempt success rate and complications were recorded and compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant difference in the mean total time for intubation between the groups (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). The success rate of the first attempt was 75% in Group BBLM, 77% in Group KVVL and 82.5% in Group FIS (<i>P</i> = 0.727). Complications like mucosal damage, oesophageal intubation, and incidence of sore throat and cough were comparable in the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intubation time was faster with BBLM and KVVL than with FIS in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilisation. The first-attempt success rate and complications were the same for all three devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"69 3\",\"pages\":\"296-301\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11952163/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_509_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_509_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:颈椎损伤患者建议采用柔性插管镜、视频喉镜及声门上气道装置引导下气管插管,避免脊髓损伤进一步加重。本研究比较了百视达喉罩气道(BBLM)、King Vision视频喉镜(KKVL)和柔性插管镜(FIS)在模拟颈椎固定患者中的插管特点。方法:本研究对120例美国麻醉医师学会评定身体状态为I-II的成人患者进行研究,这些患者计划在全身麻醉下进行择期手术,需要经口气管插管。患者随机分为BBLM组、KVVL组和FIS组。记录三组间插管时间、首次成功率及并发症的比较。结果:两组患者平均插管总时间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.0001)。BBLM组首次尝试成功率为75%,KVVL组为77%,FIS组为82.5% (P = 0.727)。三组的并发症如粘膜损伤、食管插管、喉咙痛和咳嗽的发生率相似。结论:在模拟颈椎固定患者中,BBLM和KVVL比FIS插管时间快。三种设备的首次尝试成功率和并发症相同。
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 BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.

Background and aims: Flexible intubation scope, video laryngoscope and supraglottic airway device-guided tracheal intubation are suggested in cervical spine injury patients to avoid further exacerbation of cord injury. This study compared the intubation characteristics of BlockBuster laryngeal mask airway (BBLM), King Vision video laryngoscope (KKVL) and flexible intubation scope (FIS) in patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine.

Methods: This study was performed on 120 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation. Patients were randomly allocated to Group BBLM, Group KVVL and Group FIS. Time to intubation, first-attempt success rate and complications were recorded and compared between the three groups.

Results: There was a significant difference in the mean total time for intubation between the groups (P < 0.0001). The success rate of the first attempt was 75% in Group BBLM, 77% in Group KVVL and 82.5% in Group FIS (P = 0.727). Complications like mucosal damage, oesophageal intubation, and incidence of sore throat and cough were comparable in the three groups.

Conclusion: Intubation time was faster with BBLM and KVVL than with FIS in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilisation. The first-attempt success rate and complications were the same for all three devices.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 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