Cargando…
A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation
BACKGROUND: For successful lighted stylet intubation, bending the lighted stylet with an appropriate angle is a prerequisite. The purpose of this study was to compare three different bend angles of 70, 80, and 90 degrees for lighted stylet intubation. METHODS: The patient trachea was intubated with...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34000987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01369-8 |
_version_ | 1783693900242747392 |
---|---|
author | Won, Dongwook Lee, Jung-Man Lee, Jiwon Hwang, Jin-Young Kim, Tae Kyong Chang, Jee-Eun Kim, Hyerim Ma, Seoyoung Min, Seong-Won |
author_facet | Won, Dongwook Lee, Jung-Man Lee, Jiwon Hwang, Jin-Young Kim, Tae Kyong Chang, Jee-Eun Kim, Hyerim Ma, Seoyoung Min, Seong-Won |
author_sort | Won, Dongwook |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: For successful lighted stylet intubation, bending the lighted stylet with an appropriate angle is a prerequisite. The purpose of this study was to compare three different bend angles of 70, 80, and 90 degrees for lighted stylet intubation. METHODS: The patient trachea was intubated with a lighted stylet bent at 70, 80, or 90 degrees according to the randomly allocated groups (group I, II, and III, respectively). A lighted stylet combined with a tracheal tube was prepared with a bend angle of 70, 80, or 90 degrees according to the assigned group. We checked the success rate at the first attempt and overall success rate for the two attempts. Additionally, we measured search time, which was time from insertion of the bent union into the patient mouth to the start of advancing the tracheal tube while separating it from the lighted stylet, and evaluated postoperative sore throat (POST) at 2, 4, and 24 h after the recovery from anesthesia. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between group I, II, and III for success rate at first attempt (73.9 %, 88.2 %, and 94.7 %, respectively, p = 0.178), even though there was a trend of increasing success rate with increasing bend angles. For overall success rate, there was similar result to that in the first attempt between the groups I, II, and III (82.6 %, 94.1 %, and 100 %, respectively, p = 0.141). However, search time took significantly longer in group I than groups II and III (p < 0.001). When group II and III were compared for POST with numeric rating scale (0–10), it was significantly lower in group II than III at 2, 4 h after the recovery (0.5 vs. 2.3, p = 0.016, and 0.4 vs. 1.8, p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The bend angle of the lighted stylet affected the time required for tracheal intubation and POST in our study. 80 and 90 degrees as a bend angle seem to be acceptable for clinicians in regard to success rate of lighted stylet intubation. Considering the success rate of lighted stylet intubation and POST, the bend angle of 80 degrees might be better than 70 and 90 degrees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03693235, registered on 30 September 2018. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8127176 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81271762021-05-17 A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation Won, Dongwook Lee, Jung-Man Lee, Jiwon Hwang, Jin-Young Kim, Tae Kyong Chang, Jee-Eun Kim, Hyerim Ma, Seoyoung Min, Seong-Won BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: For successful lighted stylet intubation, bending the lighted stylet with an appropriate angle is a prerequisite. The purpose of this study was to compare three different bend angles of 70, 80, and 90 degrees for lighted stylet intubation. METHODS: The patient trachea was intubated with a lighted stylet bent at 70, 80, or 90 degrees according to the randomly allocated groups (group I, II, and III, respectively). A lighted stylet combined with a tracheal tube was prepared with a bend angle of 70, 80, or 90 degrees according to the assigned group. We checked the success rate at the first attempt and overall success rate for the two attempts. Additionally, we measured search time, which was time from insertion of the bent union into the patient mouth to the start of advancing the tracheal tube while separating it from the lighted stylet, and evaluated postoperative sore throat (POST) at 2, 4, and 24 h after the recovery from anesthesia. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between group I, II, and III for success rate at first attempt (73.9 %, 88.2 %, and 94.7 %, respectively, p = 0.178), even though there was a trend of increasing success rate with increasing bend angles. For overall success rate, there was similar result to that in the first attempt between the groups I, II, and III (82.6 %, 94.1 %, and 100 %, respectively, p = 0.141). However, search time took significantly longer in group I than groups II and III (p < 0.001). When group II and III were compared for POST with numeric rating scale (0–10), it was significantly lower in group II than III at 2, 4 h after the recovery (0.5 vs. 2.3, p = 0.016, and 0.4 vs. 1.8, p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The bend angle of the lighted stylet affected the time required for tracheal intubation and POST in our study. 80 and 90 degrees as a bend angle seem to be acceptable for clinicians in regard to success rate of lighted stylet intubation. Considering the success rate of lighted stylet intubation and POST, the bend angle of 80 degrees might be better than 70 and 90 degrees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03693235, registered on 30 September 2018. BioMed Central 2021-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8127176/ /pubmed/34000987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01369-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (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 Article Won, Dongwook Lee, Jung-Man Lee, Jiwon Hwang, Jin-Young Kim, Tae Kyong Chang, Jee-Eun Kim, Hyerim Ma, Seoyoung Min, Seong-Won A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title | A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title_full | A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title_fullStr | A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title_full_unstemmed | A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title_short | A pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
title_sort | pilot study comparing three bend angles for lighted stylet intubation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34000987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01369-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wondongwook apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT leejungman apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT leejiwon apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT hwangjinyoung apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT kimtaekyong apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT changjeeeun apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT kimhyerim apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT maseoyoung apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT minseongwon apilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT wondongwook pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT leejungman pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT leejiwon pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT hwangjinyoung pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT kimtaekyong pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT changjeeeun pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT kimhyerim pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT maseoyoung pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation AT minseongwon pilotstudycomparingthreebendanglesforlightedstyletintubation |