Cargando…

Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway

PURPOSE: The GlideScope(®) video laryngoscope (GVL) is widely used for nasotracheal intubation in dental and facial plastic surgery. The angle of the Magill forceps is different from that of the GVL blade, which suggests that the Magill forceps are not the ideal forceps for use with the GVL. The pur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yeom, Jong H., Oh, Mi K., Shin, Woo J., Ahn, Dae W., Jeon, Woo J., Cho, Sang Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28952139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-017-0971-4
_version_ 1783278212894162944
author Yeom, Jong H.
Oh, Mi K.
Shin, Woo J.
Ahn, Dae W.
Jeon, Woo J.
Cho, Sang Y.
author_facet Yeom, Jong H.
Oh, Mi K.
Shin, Woo J.
Ahn, Dae W.
Jeon, Woo J.
Cho, Sang Y.
author_sort Yeom, Jong H.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The GlideScope(®) video laryngoscope (GVL) is widely used for nasotracheal intubation in dental and facial plastic surgery. The angle of the Magill forceps is different from that of the GVL blade, which suggests that the Magill forceps are not the ideal forceps for use with the GVL. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Magill forceps vs vascular forceps for nasotracheal intubation using the GVL. METHODS: This study included 60 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation. Patients were assigned to one of two groups—i.e., Magill forceps (group M) or vascular forceps along with a tube exchanger (group V), by computer randomization. The primary outcome was total intubation time, defined as the time from when the anesthesiologist picked up the device to the time when three successive end-tidal CO(2) waves were obtained following intubation. Secondary outcomes were blood in the endotracheal tube and trauma to the oral tissues or teeth. A blind observer assessed the presence of sore throat one hour and 24 hr after surgery. RESULTS: The total intubation time was significantly different between group M and group V (96.1 sec and 78.1 sec, respectively; mean difference, 18 sec; 95% confidence interval (CI), 13.7 to 49.7). The incidence of epistaxis in group M was significantly greater than that in group V (46.7% vs 16.7%, respectively; relative risk, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.8). CONCLUSION: The total intubation time was significantly less with the vascular forceps (and tube exchanger) than with the Magill forceps. Using vascular forceps also reduced the incidence of epistaxis compared with that using the Magill forceps. Using a tube exchanger and vascular forceps offers advantages over use of Magill forceps when a GlideScope video laryngoscope is used for nasotracheal intubation. Trial registration: http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/cris2/en/, CRIS, KCT0001310. Registered 29 July 2014.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5683062
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56830622017-11-22 Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway Yeom, Jong H. Oh, Mi K. Shin, Woo J. Ahn, Dae W. Jeon, Woo J. Cho, Sang Y. Can J Anaesth Reports of Original Investigations PURPOSE: The GlideScope(®) video laryngoscope (GVL) is widely used for nasotracheal intubation in dental and facial plastic surgery. The angle of the Magill forceps is different from that of the GVL blade, which suggests that the Magill forceps are not the ideal forceps for use with the GVL. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Magill forceps vs vascular forceps for nasotracheal intubation using the GVL. METHODS: This study included 60 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation. Patients were assigned to one of two groups—i.e., Magill forceps (group M) or vascular forceps along with a tube exchanger (group V), by computer randomization. The primary outcome was total intubation time, defined as the time from when the anesthesiologist picked up the device to the time when three successive end-tidal CO(2) waves were obtained following intubation. Secondary outcomes were blood in the endotracheal tube and trauma to the oral tissues or teeth. A blind observer assessed the presence of sore throat one hour and 24 hr after surgery. RESULTS: The total intubation time was significantly different between group M and group V (96.1 sec and 78.1 sec, respectively; mean difference, 18 sec; 95% confidence interval (CI), 13.7 to 49.7). The incidence of epistaxis in group M was significantly greater than that in group V (46.7% vs 16.7%, respectively; relative risk, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.8). CONCLUSION: The total intubation time was significantly less with the vascular forceps (and tube exchanger) than with the Magill forceps. Using vascular forceps also reduced the incidence of epistaxis compared with that using the Magill forceps. Using a tube exchanger and vascular forceps offers advantages over use of Magill forceps when a GlideScope video laryngoscope is used for nasotracheal intubation. Trial registration: http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/cris2/en/, CRIS, KCT0001310. Registered 29 July 2014. Springer US 2017-09-26 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5683062/ /pubmed/28952139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-017-0971-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Reports of Original Investigations
Yeom, Jong H.
Oh, Mi K.
Shin, Woo J.
Ahn, Dae W.
Jeon, Woo J.
Cho, Sang Y.
Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title_full Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title_fullStr Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title_full_unstemmed Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title_short Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
title_sort randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a glidescope video laryngoscope with magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway
topic Reports of Original Investigations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5683062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28952139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-017-0971-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yeomjongh randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway
AT ohmik randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway
AT shinwooj randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway
AT ahndaew randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway
AT jeonwooj randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway
AT chosangy randomizedcomparisonoftheeffectivenessofnasalintubationusingaglidescopevideolaryngoscopewithmagillforcepsversusvascularforcepsinpatientswithanormalairway