侧卧位气管插管联合气道表面麻醉在胃肠道内镜手术中的疗效和风险评估:一项随机对照非劣效性研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2025-10-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S541144
Li Tang, Jiehao Huang, Jinxin Guo, Mu Zhang, Wei Chen, Xiaoyong Zhao, Rui Xia, Wei Xu
{"title":"侧卧位气管插管联合气道表面麻醉在胃肠道内镜手术中的疗效和风险评估:一项随机对照非劣效性研究。","authors":"Li Tang, Jiehao Huang, Jinxin Guo, Mu Zhang, Wei Chen, Xiaoyong Zhao, Rui Xia, Wei Xu","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S541144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endotracheal intubation in the lateral versus supine position, with both approaches combined with airway surface anesthesia, in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 128 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery under general anesthesia with intubation were randomized into a lateral (L, n=64) or supine (S, n=64) intubation group, both receiving airway surface anesthesia, between January and March 2025. The primary outcome measure was intubation time, while secondary outcomes included changes in intraoperative vital signs, number of intubation attempts, first-pass success rate, positioning time, healthcare worker satisfaction, and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, sex, height, weight, BMI, ASA classification, and airway assessment (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Mean intubation times differed slightly between groups (S group: 37.4±7.6s, 95% CI 35.5-39.3; L group: 40.1±8.5s, 95% CI 38.0-42.2). The non-inferiority margin (δ) for this study was 6s, and the upper limit of the L group's confidence interval (42.2s) was below the threshold of 39.3 + 6s. Thus, lateral position intubation was not inferior to supine intubation in terms of intubation time. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of intubation attempts or first-pass success rate (<i>P</i> > 0.05). However, during positioning, the S group experienced greater hemodynamic fluctuations and a longer positioning time compared to the L group, and these differences were statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Neither group showed any dental injuries or hypoxemia, and there were no significant differences in adverse reactions between the groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventional supine intubation, lateral position endotracheal intubation with airway surface anesthesia achieves similar efficacy while providing better hemodynamic stability, faster positioning, and higher provider satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"21 ","pages":"1473-1483"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535703/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Risk Assessment of Lateral Position Endotracheal Intubation Combined with Airway Surface Anesthesia in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.\",\"authors\":\"Li Tang, Jiehao Huang, Jinxin Guo, Mu Zhang, Wei Chen, Xiaoyong Zhao, Rui Xia, Wei Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/TCRM.S541144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endotracheal intubation in the lateral versus supine position, with both approaches combined with airway surface anesthesia, in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A total of 128 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery under general anesthesia with intubation were randomized into a lateral (L, n=64) or supine (S, n=64) intubation group, both receiving airway surface anesthesia, between January and March 2025. The primary outcome measure was intubation time, while secondary outcomes included changes in intraoperative vital signs, number of intubation attempts, first-pass success rate, positioning time, healthcare worker satisfaction, and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, sex, height, weight, BMI, ASA classification, and airway assessment (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Mean intubation times differed slightly between groups (S group: 37.4±7.6s, 95% CI 35.5-39.3; L group: 40.1±8.5s, 95% CI 38.0-42.2). The non-inferiority margin (δ) for this study was 6s, and the upper limit of the L group's confidence interval (42.2s) was below the threshold of 39.3 + 6s. Thus, lateral position intubation was not inferior to supine intubation in terms of intubation time. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of intubation attempts or first-pass success rate (<i>P</i> > 0.05). However, during positioning, the S group experienced greater hemodynamic fluctuations and a longer positioning time compared to the L group, and these differences were statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Neither group showed any dental injuries or hypoxemia, and there were no significant differences in adverse reactions between the groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventional supine intubation, lateral position endotracheal intubation with airway surface anesthesia achieves similar efficacy while providing better hemodynamic stability, faster positioning, and higher provider satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"1473-1483\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535703/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S541144\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S541144","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评价和比较侧卧位与仰卧位气管插管联合气道表面麻醉在胃肠内镜手术患者中的疗效和安全性。患者和方法:选取2025年1 - 3月行胃肠内镜手术全麻插管患者128例,随机分为侧卧(L, n=64)和仰卧(S, n=64)插管组,均采用气道表面麻醉。主要结局指标为插管时间,次要结局指标包括术中生命体征变化、插管次数、首次通过成功率、定位时间、医护人员满意度和术后并发症。结果:两组患者在年龄、性别、身高、体重、BMI、ASA分级、气道评估等方面差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。各组平均插管时间差异较小(S组:37.4±7.6s, 95% CI 35.5 ~ 39.3; L组:40.1±8.5s, 95% CI 38.0 ~ 42.2)。本研究的非劣效裕度(δ)为6s, L组置信区间上限(422 s)低于阈值39.3 + 6s。因此,在插管时间方面,侧卧位插管并不亚于仰卧位插管。两组间插管次数及首次成功率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。但体位时,S组血流动力学波动较大,体位时间较L组长,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。两组患者均未出现牙损伤或低氧血症,不良反应发生率组间比较差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:与常规仰卧位气管插管相比,气道表面麻醉侧位气管插管疗效相近,且血流动力学稳定性更好,定位速度更快,提供者满意度更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy and Risk Assessment of Lateral Position Endotracheal Intubation Combined with Airway Surface Anesthesia in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.

Efficacy and Risk Assessment of Lateral Position Endotracheal Intubation Combined with Airway Surface Anesthesia in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.

Efficacy and Risk Assessment of Lateral Position Endotracheal Intubation Combined with Airway Surface Anesthesia in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.

Efficacy and Risk Assessment of Lateral Position Endotracheal Intubation Combined with Airway Surface Anesthesia in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Study.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endotracheal intubation in the lateral versus supine position, with both approaches combined with airway surface anesthesia, in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery.

Patients and methods: A total of 128 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery under general anesthesia with intubation were randomized into a lateral (L, n=64) or supine (S, n=64) intubation group, both receiving airway surface anesthesia, between January and March 2025. The primary outcome measure was intubation time, while secondary outcomes included changes in intraoperative vital signs, number of intubation attempts, first-pass success rate, positioning time, healthcare worker satisfaction, and postoperative complications.

Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, sex, height, weight, BMI, ASA classification, and airway assessment (P > 0.05). Mean intubation times differed slightly between groups (S group: 37.4±7.6s, 95% CI 35.5-39.3; L group: 40.1±8.5s, 95% CI 38.0-42.2). The non-inferiority margin (δ) for this study was 6s, and the upper limit of the L group's confidence interval (42.2s) was below the threshold of 39.3 + 6s. Thus, lateral position intubation was not inferior to supine intubation in terms of intubation time. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of intubation attempts or first-pass success rate (P > 0.05). However, during positioning, the S group experienced greater hemodynamic fluctuations and a longer positioning time compared to the L group, and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Neither group showed any dental injuries or hypoxemia, and there were no significant differences in adverse reactions between the groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Compared with conventional supine intubation, lateral position endotracheal intubation with airway surface anesthesia achieves similar efficacy while providing better hemodynamic stability, faster positioning, and higher provider satisfaction.

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
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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