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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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: The Airtraq Optical Laryngoscope is a new type of laryngoscope that provides a direct view of the glottis without alignment of the mouth, pharynx and trachea. Data show that it has advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the use of the Airtraq laryngo-scope versus the No. 3 Macintosh blade for routine airway management in terms of intubation time, complications during and after laryngoscopy, and ease of use.
Methods: In this single-center, randomized, clinical trial, 63 patients scheduled for elective operation were randomly allocated to two groups. Thirty-five patients were intubated with the Airtraq laryngoscope and 28 with the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope. All intubations were performed by experienced anesthesiologists who had a similar level of experience with the Airtraq laryngoscope. The time needed for intubation, any assistance required, complications during and after laryngoscopy and intubation, and the number of unsuccessful intubation attempts were documented and compared between the groups.
Results: Intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope was quicker (mean+/-standard deviation: 23.7+/-5.9 seconds) than with the Airtraq laryngoscope (29.6+/-8.5 seconds). Although the difference (5.9 seconds) was statistically significant (p<0.05), it was not clinically significant. The anesthesiologists who used the Airtraq laryngo-scope less frequently required assistance (p<0.05) to place the endotracheal tube. No differences were found regarding complications during and after laryngoscopy and intubation. There were no differences in any of the outcomes in patients with Mallampati class > 2.
Conclusion: The Airtraq laryngoscope is easier to use but it does not have any significant advantages compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope for routine airway management. More studies are needed to evaluate its use in patients with a difficult airway, and in emergency procedures.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1875-4597(10)60004-5 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!