{"title":"探针和C-MAC D-blade探条在颈椎模拟不动中的比较。一项前瞻性随机对照试验","authors":"Nirenjen Sadamaaya Thevar Manoharan, Nita Varghese, Rama Rani Krishna Bhat","doi":"10.5554/22562087.e1061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The C-MAC D-blade was designed for difficult airway intubation scenarios. To facilitate easier and faster endotracheal intubation in the laryngoscopy paradox, an introducer is preferred. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to compare the 60˚ angled C-MAC stylet and the gum elastic bougie as aids to intubation while using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway setting.\nObjective: To compare the ease of oral intubation with the use of the C-MAC stylet (60˚ angled stylet) versus intubation performed over a bougie inserted using the C-MAC D-blade guidance in patients with simulated restricted cervical mobility.\nMethods: Prospective, randomized controlled single-center study. Intubation using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope was performed in 48 surgical patients randomly assigned to 2 groups of 24 each: Stylet group, Group S (using 60˚ angled stylet) and Bougie group, Group B (using bougie) after providing manual in-line stabilization to restrict cervical mobility. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi square test were used as applicable. \nResults: The use of stylet resulted in easier (Group S 75% vs. Group B 16.7%) and faster (Group S 26.83 ± 8.61s vs. Group B 47.18 ± 16.46s) intubation with fewer attempts compared to group B. Both groups experienced a similar hemodynamic stress response to intubation.\nConclusions: The 60˚ angled C-MAC Stylet is a more effective and time-saving intubation aid with C-MAC D-blade compared to bougie.","PeriodicalId":36529,"journal":{"name":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between stylet and bougie with the C-MAC D-blade in cervical simulated immobility. A prospective randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Nirenjen Sadamaaya Thevar Manoharan, Nita Varghese, Rama Rani Krishna Bhat\",\"doi\":\"10.5554/22562087.e1061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The C-MAC D-blade was designed for difficult airway intubation scenarios. To facilitate easier and faster endotracheal intubation in the laryngoscopy paradox, an introducer is preferred. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to compare the 60˚ angled C-MAC stylet and the gum elastic bougie as aids to intubation while using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway setting.\\nObjective: To compare the ease of oral intubation with the use of the C-MAC stylet (60˚ angled stylet) versus intubation performed over a bougie inserted using the C-MAC D-blade guidance in patients with simulated restricted cervical mobility.\\nMethods: Prospective, randomized controlled single-center study. Intubation using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope was performed in 48 surgical patients randomly assigned to 2 groups of 24 each: Stylet group, Group S (using 60˚ angled stylet) and Bougie group, Group B (using bougie) after providing manual in-line stabilization to restrict cervical mobility. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi square test were used as applicable. \\nResults: The use of stylet resulted in easier (Group S 75% vs. Group B 16.7%) and faster (Group S 26.83 ± 8.61s vs. Group B 47.18 ± 16.46s) intubation with fewer attempts compared to group B. Both groups experienced a similar hemodynamic stress response to intubation.\\nConclusions: The 60˚ angled C-MAC Stylet is a more effective and time-saving intubation aid with C-MAC D-blade compared to bougie.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
C-MAC D-blade是为困难气道插管场景设计的。在喉镜检查悖论中,为了使气管插管更容易和更快,推荐引入器。因此,我们决定在模拟困难气道环境下使用C-MAC d -刀片喉镜,比较60˚角C-MAC型腔和牙龈弹性伸缩器作为辅助插管的效果。目的:比较C-MAC型(60˚角型)与C-MAC d型刀片引导下的弓支插管在模拟颈椎活动受限患者中的易用性。方法:前瞻性、随机对照、单中心研究。采用C-MAC d刀片喉镜对48例手术患者进行插管,随机分为2组,每组24例:Stylet组,S组(使用60˚角Stylet)和Bougie组,B组(使用Bougie),给予手动在线稳定以限制颈椎活动。适用时采用Mann-Whitney U检验和卡方检验。结果:与B组相比,使用stylet插管更容易(S组75% vs B组16.7%),插管速度更快(S组26.83±8.61s vs B组47.18±16.46s),插管次数较少。两组的血流动力学应激反应相似。结论:60˚角C-MAC Stylet与bougie相比,C-MAC D-blade是一种更有效、更省时的插管辅助工具。
Comparison between stylet and bougie with the C-MAC D-blade in cervical simulated immobility. A prospective randomized controlled trial
Introduction: The C-MAC D-blade was designed for difficult airway intubation scenarios. To facilitate easier and faster endotracheal intubation in the laryngoscopy paradox, an introducer is preferred. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to compare the 60˚ angled C-MAC stylet and the gum elastic bougie as aids to intubation while using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway setting.
Objective: To compare the ease of oral intubation with the use of the C-MAC stylet (60˚ angled stylet) versus intubation performed over a bougie inserted using the C-MAC D-blade guidance in patients with simulated restricted cervical mobility.
Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled single-center study. Intubation using the C-MAC D-blade laryngoscope was performed in 48 surgical patients randomly assigned to 2 groups of 24 each: Stylet group, Group S (using 60˚ angled stylet) and Bougie group, Group B (using bougie) after providing manual in-line stabilization to restrict cervical mobility. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi square test were used as applicable.
Results: The use of stylet resulted in easier (Group S 75% vs. Group B 16.7%) and faster (Group S 26.83 ± 8.61s vs. Group B 47.18 ± 16.46s) intubation with fewer attempts compared to group B. Both groups experienced a similar hemodynamic stress response to intubation.
Conclusions: The 60˚ angled C-MAC Stylet is a more effective and time-saving intubation aid with C-MAC D-blade compared to bougie.