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}
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.
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.