Huitrón MA, Athié GJM, Martínez RVA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 131-135
PDF size: 140.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the intubation time between two video laryngoscopes (VLs) King Vision versus Vivid Trac, in the hands of a resident with no experience , in patients with normal airway. Material and methods: 60 patients were evaluated. Group 1 with King Vision (n = 30) and Group 2 with Vivid Trac (n = 30). Previous approval of the Ethics Committee and informed consent. Success and intubation time were registered. Results: there was no significant difference in the rate of assessment of difficult airway. The success rate of intubation was 100%. The media Intubation time in seconds for the King Vision group was 16 ± 4.1 and 31 ± 15.41 for the Vivid Trac group (p ‹ 0.05). Conclusions: The King Vision provides superior intubation conditions in patients with normal airway. These VLs facilitate intubation reducing the incidence of failed intubation. In these new generations the ability to maneuver without displaying the target directly, facilitates the learning curve on these devices. The efficacy and safety of these could define the next gold standard for endotracheal intubation in cases of difficult and normal airway.

REFERENCES

1. Khubar A, Al Ghamdi A, El Tahan M, Khidir A. Comparison of the Macintosh, King Vision, Glidescope and Airtraq Laryngoscopes in routine airway management. ClinicalKey. 2014;

2. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Evron S et al. A brief history of tracheostomy and tracheal intubation, from the bronze age to the space age. Intensive Care Med. 2008; 34: 222-228.

3. Ige M, Chumacero J. Manteniendo la permeabilidad de la vía aérea. Acta Med Per. 2010; 27 (4): 270-280.

4. Oriol S, Hernández M, Hernández C, Álvarez A. Valoración, predicción y presencia de intubación difícil. Revista Mexicana de Anestesiología. 2009; 32 (1): 41-49.

5. Déctor T, Wacher N, Abad L y cols. Índice de predicción de intubación difícil (IPID). Rev Anest Mex. 1997; 9 (6): 212-218.

6. Ríos GE y cols. Valor predictivo de las evaluaciones de la vía aérea difícil. Trauma. 2005; 8 (3): 63-70.

7. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ et al. Early clinical experience with a new video laryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anesth. 2005; 52: 191-198.

8. Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R et al. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anesthesia. 2009; 64: 1207-1210.

9. Aziz M. The role of video laryngoscopy in airway management. Advances in Anesthesia. 2013; 31: 87-98.

10. Rothfield K. The video laryngoscopy market: past, present and future. Anesthesiology News Guide to Airway Management. 2014; 40 (8): 29-34.

11. Guzmán J. Videolaringoscopios. Rev Chil Anest. 2009; 38: 135-144.

12. Akisha Y, Maruyama K, Yamada R, Ogura A. Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study. J Anesth. 2014; 28: 51-57.

13. Murphy LD, Kovacs GJ, Reardon PM, Law JA. Comparison of the king vision video laryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med. 2014; 47 (2): 239-246.

14. Durán F, Martínez VA, Athié JM. Éxito de la intubación traqueal con laringoscopio Airtraq o Macintosh, en pacientes sometidos a cirugía general bajo anestesia general balanceada. Acta Médica Grupo Ángeles. 2011; 9 (3): 119-123.

15. Maharaj CH, O’Cronin D, Curley G, Harte BH et al. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the Airtraq or the Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Anesthesia. 2006; 61: 1093-1099.