Feasibility and outcome of GlideScope videolaryngoscope versus C-MAC videolaryngoscope in the management of obese patients with potentially difficult intubation
Background Difficult andfailed tracheal intubation remains a leading cause ofmorbidity and mortality related to anesthesia practice. Videolaryngoscopes were introduced into practice to increase the success rate of intubation in obese patients with difficult airway. Aim The aim of this study was to c...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ain-Shams journal of anesthesiology 2017, Vol.10 (1), p.164-172 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Difficult andfailed tracheal intubation remains a leading cause ofmorbidity and mortality
related to anesthesia practice. Videolaryngoscopes were introduced into practice to
increase the success rate of intubation in obese patients with difficult airway.
Aim
The aim of this study was to compare GlideScope and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in
obese patients with anticipated difficult intubation as regards feasibility and outcome.
Patients and methods
The study was designed as a prospective comparative single-blind study, which
was conducted at King Abdullah Hospital, Bisha, KSA, during the period from
January 2013 to January 2015. It included 60 obese patients with anticipated
difficult intubation. They were randomly divided into two equal groups: the
GlideScope group and the C-MAC group. All patients were assessed for
demographic characteristics, intubation parameters, and outcome.
Results
There were no significant differences between the two groups as regards general
characteristics and hemodynamics. However, there was a significantly better glottic
view in the GlideScope group compared with the C-MAC group. There was a
significantly shorter total intubation time and first attempt intubation time in the
GlideScope group compared with the C-MAC group (32.43±2.40 and 28.70±2.15 s
vs. 40.40±5.07 and 34.80±2.92 s, respectively). The incidence of failure of the first
intubation attempt was significantly higher in the C-MAC group compared with the
GlideScope group (33.3 vs. 10.0%, respectively). Overall satisfaction was
significantly better in the GlideScope group compared with the C-MAC group.
Conclusion
GlideScope had better glottic view, shorter total intubation and first attempt
intubation times, and higher success rate of first intubation attempt compared
with C-MAC. These results advocate the use of GlideScope in obese patients with
potentially difficult intubation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1687-7934 2090-925X |