Cargando…

Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: The 2022 ASA guidelines recommend the video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope as airway management tools. This study aims to compare the efficacy of three airway devices in intubating patients with difficult airways. METHODS: A total of 177 patients were selected and ra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Tao, Zhao, Kai-Yuan, Zhang, Ping, Li, Ren-Hu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07641-1
_version_ 1785108399258599424
author Zhang, Tao
Zhao, Kai-Yuan
Zhang, Ping
Li, Ren-Hu
author_facet Zhang, Tao
Zhao, Kai-Yuan
Zhang, Ping
Li, Ren-Hu
author_sort Zhang, Tao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 2022 ASA guidelines recommend the video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope as airway management tools. This study aims to compare the efficacy of three airway devices in intubating patients with difficult airways. METHODS: A total of 177 patients were selected and randomized into the following three groups: the video laryngoscope group (Group VL, n = 59), video stylet group (Group VS, n = 59), and flexible videoscope group (Group FV, n = 59). The success rate of the first-pass intubation, time of tracheal intubation, level of glottic exposure, and occurrence of intubation-related adverse events were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: All patients were successfully intubated with three devices. The first-pass intubation success rate was significantly higher in Groups VS and FV than in Group VL (96.61% vs. 93.22% vs. 83.05%, P < 0.01), but it was similar in the first-pass intubation success rate between Groups VS and FV(P > 0.05). The number of patients categorized as Wilson-Cormack-Lehane grade I-II was fewer in Group VL than in Groups VS and FV (77.97% vs. 98.30% vs. 100%, P = 0.0281). The time to tracheal intubation was significantly longer in Group FV(95.20 ± 4.01) than in Groups VL(44.56 ± 4.42) and VS(26.88 ± 4.51) (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of adverse intubation reactions (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with difficult airways requiring intubation, use of the video stylet has the advantage of a relatively shorter intubation time, and the flexible videoscope and video stylet yield a higher first-pass intubation success rate and clearer glottic exposure than the use of the video laryngoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. No: ChiCTR2200061560, June 29, 2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07641-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10512610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105126102023-09-22 Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study Zhang, Tao Zhao, Kai-Yuan Zhang, Ping Li, Ren-Hu Trials Research BACKGROUND: The 2022 ASA guidelines recommend the video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope as airway management tools. This study aims to compare the efficacy of three airway devices in intubating patients with difficult airways. METHODS: A total of 177 patients were selected and randomized into the following three groups: the video laryngoscope group (Group VL, n = 59), video stylet group (Group VS, n = 59), and flexible videoscope group (Group FV, n = 59). The success rate of the first-pass intubation, time of tracheal intubation, level of glottic exposure, and occurrence of intubation-related adverse events were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: All patients were successfully intubated with three devices. The first-pass intubation success rate was significantly higher in Groups VS and FV than in Group VL (96.61% vs. 93.22% vs. 83.05%, P < 0.01), but it was similar in the first-pass intubation success rate between Groups VS and FV(P > 0.05). The number of patients categorized as Wilson-Cormack-Lehane grade I-II was fewer in Group VL than in Groups VS and FV (77.97% vs. 98.30% vs. 100%, P = 0.0281). The time to tracheal intubation was significantly longer in Group FV(95.20 ± 4.01) than in Groups VL(44.56 ± 4.42) and VS(26.88 ± 4.51) (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of adverse intubation reactions (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with difficult airways requiring intubation, use of the video stylet has the advantage of a relatively shorter intubation time, and the flexible videoscope and video stylet yield a higher first-pass intubation success rate and clearer glottic exposure than the use of the video laryngoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. No: ChiCTR2200061560, June 29, 2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07641-1. BioMed Central 2023-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10512610/ /pubmed/37735666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07641-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhang, Tao
Zhao, Kai-Yuan
Zhang, Ping
Li, Ren-Hu
Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title_full Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title_fullStr Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title_short Comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
title_sort comparison of video laryngoscope, video stylet, and flexible videoscope for transoral endotracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways: a randomized, parallel-group study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07641-1
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangtao comparisonofvideolaryngoscopevideostyletandflexiblevideoscopefortransoralendotrachealintubationinpatientswithdifficultairwaysarandomizedparallelgroupstudy
AT zhaokaiyuan comparisonofvideolaryngoscopevideostyletandflexiblevideoscopefortransoralendotrachealintubationinpatientswithdifficultairwaysarandomizedparallelgroupstudy
AT zhangping comparisonofvideolaryngoscopevideostyletandflexiblevideoscopefortransoralendotrachealintubationinpatientswithdifficultairwaysarandomizedparallelgroupstudy
AT lirenhu comparisonofvideolaryngoscopevideostyletandflexiblevideoscopefortransoralendotrachealintubationinpatientswithdifficultairwaysarandomizedparallelgroupstudy