Cargando…

GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial

BACKGROUND: The double lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is the most widely-used device for single lung ventilation in current thoracic anesthesia practice. In recent years, the routine application of the videolaryngoscope for single lumen endotracheal intubation has increased; nevertheless there are fe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Ping, Zhou, Renlong, Lu, Zhixing, Hang, Yannan, Wang, Shanjuan, Huang, Zhenling
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32434470
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y
_version_ 1783536547728982016
author Huang, Ping
Zhou, Renlong
Lu, Zhixing
Hang, Yannan
Wang, Shanjuan
Huang, Zhenling
author_facet Huang, Ping
Zhou, Renlong
Lu, Zhixing
Hang, Yannan
Wang, Shanjuan
Huang, Zhenling
author_sort Huang, Ping
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The double lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is the most widely-used device for single lung ventilation in current thoracic anesthesia practice. In recent years, the routine application of the videolaryngoscope for single lumen endotracheal intubation has increased; nevertheless there are few studies of the use of the videolaryngoscope for DLT. We wondered whether there were benefits to using the videolaryngoscope for DLT placement in patients with predicted normal airways. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the performances of the GlideScope®, the C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in DLT intubation. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, prospective study. We randomly allocated 90 adult patients with predicted normal airways into three groups. All patients underwent routine anesthesia using different laryngoscopes according to group allocation. We compared DLT insertion times, first-pass success rates, numerical rating scales (NRS) of DLT delivery and DLT insertion, Cormack-Lehane degrees (C/L), hemodynamic changes and incidences of intubation complications. All outcomes were analyzed using SPSS13.0. RESULTS: Compared with the GlideScope, the Macintosh gave shorter times for DLT insertion (median: 96 (IQR: 51 [min–max: 62–376] s vs 73 (26 [48–419] s, p = 0.003); however, there was no difference between the Macintosh and C-MAC(D) (p = 0.610). The Macintosh had a significantly higher successful first attempt rate than did the GlideScope or C-MAC(D) (p = 0.001, p = 0.028, respectively). NRS of DLT delivery and insertion were significantly lower in the Macintosh than in the others (p < 0.001). However, the C/L degree in the Macintosh was significantly higher than in the others (p < 0.001). The incidences of oral bleeding, hoarseness, sore throat and dental trauma were low in all groups (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in DLT misplacement, fiberoptic time or hemodynamic changes among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope® and C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscopes may not be recommended as the first choice for routine DLT intubation in patients with predicted normal airways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR1900025718); principal investigator: Z.L.H.; date of registration: September 6, 2019.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7238523
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72385232020-05-27 GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial Huang, Ping Zhou, Renlong Lu, Zhixing Hang, Yannan Wang, Shanjuan Huang, Zhenling BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: The double lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is the most widely-used device for single lung ventilation in current thoracic anesthesia practice. In recent years, the routine application of the videolaryngoscope for single lumen endotracheal intubation has increased; nevertheless there are few studies of the use of the videolaryngoscope for DLT. We wondered whether there were benefits to using the videolaryngoscope for DLT placement in patients with predicted normal airways. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the performances of the GlideScope®, the C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in DLT intubation. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, prospective study. We randomly allocated 90 adult patients with predicted normal airways into three groups. All patients underwent routine anesthesia using different laryngoscopes according to group allocation. We compared DLT insertion times, first-pass success rates, numerical rating scales (NRS) of DLT delivery and DLT insertion, Cormack-Lehane degrees (C/L), hemodynamic changes and incidences of intubation complications. All outcomes were analyzed using SPSS13.0. RESULTS: Compared with the GlideScope, the Macintosh gave shorter times for DLT insertion (median: 96 (IQR: 51 [min–max: 62–376] s vs 73 (26 [48–419] s, p = 0.003); however, there was no difference between the Macintosh and C-MAC(D) (p = 0.610). The Macintosh had a significantly higher successful first attempt rate than did the GlideScope or C-MAC(D) (p = 0.001, p = 0.028, respectively). NRS of DLT delivery and insertion were significantly lower in the Macintosh than in the others (p < 0.001). However, the C/L degree in the Macintosh was significantly higher than in the others (p < 0.001). The incidences of oral bleeding, hoarseness, sore throat and dental trauma were low in all groups (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in DLT misplacement, fiberoptic time or hemodynamic changes among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope® and C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscopes may not be recommended as the first choice for routine DLT intubation in patients with predicted normal airways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR1900025718); principal investigator: Z.L.H.; date of registration: September 6, 2019. BioMed Central 2020-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7238523/ /pubmed/32434470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://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 Article
Huang, Ping
Zhou, Renlong
Lu, Zhixing
Hang, Yannan
Wang, Shanjuan
Huang, Zhenling
GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title_full GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title_fullStr GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title_full_unstemmed GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title_short GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
title_sort glidescope® versus c-mac®(d) videolaryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32434470
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y
work_keys_str_mv AT huangping glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial
AT zhourenlong glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial
AT luzhixing glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial
AT hangyannan glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial
AT wangshanjuan glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial
AT huangzhenling glidescopeversuscmacdvideolaryngoscopeversusmacintoshlaryngoscopefordoublelumenendotrachealintubationinpatientswithpredictednormalairwaysarandomizedcontrolledprospectivetrial