Orozco‑Ramírez SM, Chávez‑Muñoz CA, Álvarez‑Canales JAJ

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 275-280
PDF size: 342.73 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Fundamental responsability of anesthesiologist is to secure and to maintain a secure airway. The complications that arise in the failure of intubation are cause of morbidity and mortality. The use of video laryngoscopes give us a better view of glottis, although it may increase the intubation time due to its shape. No studies have been found made in anesthesiology residents; most of the studies are carried out in experienced personnel in the use of video laryncoscopes. Material and methods: 25 laryngoscopies were performed with each videolaryngoscope in patients over 18 years old, ASA I-III, without difficult airways predictors, under general anesthesia. The differences between hemodynamic variables (blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation) as well as time and number of intubation attempts were determined. Results: We found statistical significance for the number of intubation attempts (p = 0.037) and for the intubation time (p = 0.011). Conclusions: The better handling was in favor of the Truview EVO, we could observe a greater difficulty to introduce the endotracheal tube in King Vision. The results obtained in our study are comparable with those obtained in other studies perform in experienced personnel.

REFERENCES

1. Bharadwaj A, Khurana G, Jindal P. Cervical spine movement and ease of intubation using truview or McCoy laryngoscope in difficult intubation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:987-993.

2. Chaparro-Mendoza K, Luna-Montúfar CA, Gómez JM. Videolaringoscopios: ¿La solución para el manejo de la vía aérea difícil o una estrategia más? Revisión no sistemática. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2015;43:225-233.

3. Anand L, Palta S, Timanaykar R. A randomized controlled study to evaluate and compare Truview blade with Macintosh blade for laryngoscopy and intubation under general anesthesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011;27:199.

4. McNarry AF, Patel A. The evolution of airway management-new concepts and conflicts with traditional practice. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:i154-166.

5. Pieters BMA, Maas EHA, Knape JTA, van Zundert AAJ. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:1532-1541.

6. Cavus E, Janssen S, Reifferscheid F, Caliebe A, Callies A, von der Heyden M, et al. Videolaryngoscopy for physician-based, prehospital emergency intubation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:1565-1574.

7. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, Savoldelli GL, Nabecker S, Theiler LG. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:670-679.

8. Martínez A, García J. Tiempo de intubación entre videolaringoscopios: King Vision vs Vivid Trac. Estudio comparativo. Acta Med. 2016;14:131-135.

9. Singh R, Kumar N, Jain A. A randomised trial to compare Truview PCD®, C-MAC® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in paediatric airway management. Asian J Anesthesiol. 2017;55:41-44.

10. Vivek B, Sripriya R, Mishra G, Ravishankar M, Parthasarathy S. Comparison of success of tracheal intubation using Macintosh laryngoscope-assisted Bonfils fiberscope and Truview video laryngoscope in simulated difficult airway. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017;33:107-111.

11. Gaszynska E, Gaszynski T. Truview EVO2 and standard macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A comparative randomized crossover study. Med (United States). 2014;93:1-6.

12. Turan Inal M, Memis D, Kargi M, Oktay Z, Sut N. Comparison of TruView EVO2 with Miller laryngoscope in paediatric patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:950-954.

13. Gaszynska E, Samsel P, Stankiewicz-Rudnicki M, Wieczorek A, Gaszynski T. Intubation by paramedics using the ILMA or AirTraq, KingVision, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in vehicle-entrapped patients: a manikin study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2014;21:61-64.

14. Aguirre Ospina OD, Ríos Medina ÁM, Calderón Marulanda M, Gómez Buitrago LM. Curvas de aprendizaje de sumatoria acumulada (CUSUM) en procedimientos básicos de anestesia. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2014;42:142-153.

15. Kurnaz MM, Sarıtaş A. Comparison of the effects of Truview PCDTM video laryngoscopy and Macintosh blade direct laryngoscopy in geriatric patients. J Clin Anesth. 2016;35:268-273.

16. Gaszynska E, Gaszynski T. Endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope during uninterrupted chest compression. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014.

17. Ali QE, Amir SH, Ahmad S. A comparative evaluation of King Vision video laryngoscope (Channelled blade), McCoy, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine. Sri Lankan J Anaesthesiol. 2017;25:70-75.

18. Arora S, Sayeed H, Bhardwaj N. A comparison of Truview EVO2 laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7:244.

19. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Buttenberg M, Greif R, Nabecker S, Theiler L. Evaluation of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a simulated difficult airway: a randomised, controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:370-378.

20. Priyanka A, Nag K, Hemanth Kumar V, Singh D, Kumar S, Sivashanmugam T. Comparison of king vision and truview laryngoscope for postextubation visualization of vocal cord mobility in patients undergoing thyroid and major neck surgeries: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11:238-242.

21. Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:181-183.

22. Abdulmohsen A, Mohamed R. Comparison of the Macintosh, GlideScope®, Airtraq®, and King VisionTM laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:1278-1288.