A PHP Error was encountered

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

Comparison of the GlideRite to the conventional malleable stylet for endotracheal intubation by the Macintosh laryngoscope: a simulation study using manikins. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the GlideRite stylet with the conventional malleable stylet (CMS) in endotracheal intubation (ETI) by the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Methods: This study is a randomized, crossover, simulation study. Participants performed ETI using both the GlideRite stylet and the CMS in a normal airway model and a tongue edema model (simulated difficult airway resulting in lower percentage of glottic opening [POGO]).

Results: In both the normal and tongue edema models, all 36 participants successfully performed ETI with the two stylets on the first attempt. In the normal airway model, there was no difference in time required for ETI (T) or in ease of handling between the two stylets. In the tongue edema model, the T using the CMS increased as the POGO score decreased (POGO score was negatively correlated with T for the CMS, Spearman's rho=-0.518, P=0.001); this difference was not seen with the GlideRite (rho=-0.208, P=0.224). The T was shorter with the GlideRite than with the CMS, however, this difference was not statistically significant (15.1 vs. 18.8 seconds, P=0.385). Ease of handling was superior with the GlideRite compared with the CMS (P=0.006).

Conclusion: Performance of the GlideRite and the CMS were not different in the normal airway model. However, in the simulated difficult airway model with a low POGO score, the GlideRite performed better than the CMS for direct laryngoscopic intubation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051621PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.038DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

airway model
16
normal airway
12
tongue edema
12
pogo score
12
conventional malleable
8
malleable stylet
8
endotracheal intubation
8
simulation study
8
gliderite stylet
8
cms
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!