Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Direct laryngoscopy is difficult when the cervical spine is immobilized. The Airway Scope and StyletScope are new laryngoscopes designed to facilitate intubation under these circumstances. Thus, in patients wearing a rigid cervical collar to simulate a difficult airway, we tested the hypothesis that the intubation success rates of the Airway Scope and StyletScope are similar, but that intubation with Airway Scope is faster.
Methods: Adult patients requiring tracheal intubation as part of anesthesia were enrolled. After anesthesia induction and muscle relaxation, patients' necks were stabilized with a rigid Philadelphia collar and patients were randomly assigned to tracheal intubation with Airway Scope (n = 50) or StyletScope (n = 50). Overall intubation success rate, time required for intubation, the number of attempts required for successful intubation, and airway complications related to intubation were recorded.
Results: Overall intubation success rates were 98% with Airway Scope and 96% with StyletScope. Intubation was 19 s faster with Airway Scope (32[8] s; mean) versus StyletScope (51[29] s). The number of required intubation attempts was similar with each device: 26/18/5 (first/second/third attempt) for Airway Scope versus 26/17/5 for StyletScope. The incidence of mucosal trauma and lip injury was similar, except esophageal intubation occurred only with StyletScope (n = 6); neither dental injury nor hypoxia occurred.
Conclusions: Both the Airway Scope and StyletScope offer high success rates in a simulated difficult airway achieved by a rigid collar. However, the Airway Scope is faster and less likely to cause esophageal intubation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31818a4398 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!