The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients

Semih ARICI, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Serkan KARAMAN, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Serkan DOĞRU, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Tuğba KARAMAN, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Hakan TAPAR, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Asker Zeki ÖZSOY, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Ziya KAYA, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Mustafa SÜREN (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
6 0
Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 44 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 387 - 392 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients

Öz:
Background/aim: Anesthesiologists have encountered various difficulties in securing the airway. Therefore, we compare the intubation times and hemodynamic changes between the McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Materials and methods: A total of 80 obstetric patients were divided into 2 groups, orotracheally intubated with either the McGrath video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope. The intubation times, Cormack Lehane grade, percentage of glottic opening, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rates were compared among the groups. Results: Intubation time in the McGrath video laryngoscope group was significantly longer than in the Macintosh laryngoscope group (P < 0.01). The percentage of glottic opening was found to be higher in the McGrath video laryngoscope group (P = 0.002). Conclusion: The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope provides excellent views during orotracheal intubation in obstetric anesthesia with normal airways.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Cerrahi
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 251–270.
  • 2. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 1269–1277.
  • 3. Tan BH, Liu EHC, Lim RTC, Liow LMH, Goy RWL. Ease of intubation with the Glidescope or Airway Scope by novice operators in simulated easy and difficult airways-a manikin study. Anesthesia 2007; 54: 307–313.
  • 4. Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K, Reeve CS, Robinson N, Stewart CJ, Trudeau T. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 1207–1210.
  • 5. Noppens RR, Möbus S, Heid F, Schmidtmann I, Werner C, Piepho T. Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 716–720.
  • 6. Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, Hung OR, Law JA, MacQuarrie K, McKenn D, George RB, Ngan J. The McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 142–147.
  • 7. Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of the McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 116–119.
  • 8. Piepho T, Weinert K, Heid FM, Werner C, Noppens RR. Comparison of the McGrath® Series 5 and GlideScope® Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011; 19: 4.
  • 9. Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Case series: The McGrath® videolaryngoscope-an initial clinical evaluation. Can J Anesth 2007; 54: 307–313.
  • 10. Douglas MJ, Preston RL. The obstetric airway: things are seldom as they seem. Can J Anaesth 2011; 58: 494–498.
  • 11. Erden İA, Pamuk AG, Uzun Ş, Geyik S, Çekirge S, Aypar Ü. Cervical spine movement during intubation using the Airtraq® and direct laryngoscopy. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 299–304.
  • 12. Walker L, Brampton W, Halai M, Hoy C, Lee E, Scott I, McLernon DJ. Randomized controlled trial of intubation with the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope by inexperienced anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103: 440–445.
  • 13. Savoldelli GL, Schiffer E, Abegg C, Baeriswyl V, Clergue F, Waeber JL. Comparison of the Glidescope, the McGrath, the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airways. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 1358–1364.
  • 14. Jeon WJ, Kim KH, Yeom JH, Bang MR, Hong JB, Cho SY. A comparison of the Glidescope® to the McGrath® videolaryngoscope in paitents. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011; 61: 19–23.
  • 15. Wetsch WA, Carlitscheck M, Spelten O, Teschendorf P, Hellmich M, Genzwürker HV, Hinkelbein J. Success rates and endotracheal tube insertion times of experienced emergency physicians using five video laryngoscopes: a randomized trial in a simulated trapped car accident victim. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 849–858.
  • 16. Rosenstock CV, Thogersen B, Afshari A, Christensen AL, Eriksen C, Gatke MR. Awake fiberoptic or awake video laryngoscopic tracheal intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway management: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiology 2012; 116: 1210–1216.
  • 17. van Zundert A, Maassen R, Lee R, Willems R, Timmerman M, Siemonsma M, Buise M, Wiepking M. A Macintosh laryngoscope blade for videolaryngoscopy reduces stylet use in patients with normal airways. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 825–831.
  • 18. Pampal HK, Alkan M, Demirel CB, Emmez G, Bedirli N. An alternative method of oral to nasal endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing maxillofacial surgery. Turk J Med Sci 2013; 43: 493–495.
  • 19. Ochroch EA, Hollander JE, Kush S, Shofer FS, Levitan RM. Assessment of laryngeal view: percentage of glottic opening score vs Cormack and Lehane grading. Can J Anaesth 1999; 46: 987–990.
  • 20. Kodali BS, Chandrasekhar S, Bulich LN, Topulos GP, Datta S. Airway changes during labor and delivery. Anesthesiology 2008; 108: 357–362.
  • 21. Jouppila R, Jouppila P, Holman A. Laryngeal oedema as an obstetric anaesthesia complication: case reports. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1980; 24: 97–98.
  • 22. Munnur U, de Boisblanc B, Suresh MS. Airway problems in pregnancy. Crit Care Med 2005; 33: 259–268.
  • 23. Kuczkowski KM, Fouhy SA, Greenberg M, Benumorf JL. Trauma in pregnancy: anaesthetic management of the pregnant trauma victim with unstable cervical spine. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 822.
  • 24. Pilkington S, Carli F, Dakin MJ, Romney M, De Witt KA, Dore CJ, Cormack RS. Increase in Mallampati score during pregnancy. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74: 638–642.
  • 25. Davies JM, Weeks S, Crone LA, Pavlin E. Difficult intubation in the parturient. Can J Anaesth 1989; 36: 668–674.
  • 26. Hawkins JL, Koonin LM, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP. Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979-1990. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 277–284.
  • 27. Ross BK. ASA closed claims in obstetrics: lessons learned. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2003; 21: 183–197.
  • 28. Dupanovic M, Isaacson SA, Borovcanin Z, Jain S, Korten S, Karan S, Messing SP. Clinical comparison of two stylet angles for orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope video laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 2010; 22: 352–359.
  • 29. Purugganan RV, Jackson TA, Heir JS, Wang H, Cata JP. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation: a retrospective analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012; 26: 845–848.
  • 30. Atlee JL, Dhamee MS, Olund TL, George V. The use of esmolol, nicardipine, or their combination to blunt hemodynamic changes after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 280–285.
  • 31. Takahashi S, Mizutani T, Miyabe M, Toyooka H. Hemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation with laryngoscope versus lightwand intubating device (Trachlight) in adults with normal airway. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 480–484.
  • 32. Kovac AL. Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth 1996; 8: 63–79.
  • 33. Hall AP, Thompson JP, Leslie NA, Fox AJ, Kumar N, Rowbotham DJ. Comparison of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 100–102.
  • 34. Akhlagh SH, Vaziri MT, Masoumi T, Anbardan SJ. Hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation via direct laryngoscopy and intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Middle East J Anesthesiol 2011; 21: 99–103.
  • 35. Kayhan Z, Aldemir D, Mutlu H, Oğüş E. Which is responsible for the haemodynamic response due to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation? Catecholamines, vasopressin or angiotensin? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22: 780–785.
  • 36. O’Hare R, McAtamney D, Mirakhur RK, Hughes D, Carabine U. Bolus dose remifentanil for control of haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation during rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 283–285.
  • 37. Xue FS, Zhang GH, Li XY, Sun HT, Li P, Li CW, Liu KP. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 2007; 19: 245–250.
  • 38. Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC, Hoogstra J, Turkstra TP. A comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 2008; 107: 144–148.
  • 39. Nishikawa K, Matsuoka H, Saito S. Tracheal intubation with the PENTAX-AWS (airway scope) reduces changes of hemodynamic responses and bispectral index scores compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2009; 21: 292– 296.
APA ARICI S, KARAMAN S, Dogru S, KARAMAN T, TAPAR h, ÖZSOY A, KAYA Z, süren m (2014). The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. , 387 - 392.
Chicago ARICI Semih,KARAMAN Serkan,Dogru Serkan,KARAMAN Tuğba,TAPAR hakan,ÖZSOY ASKER ZEKİ,KAYA Ziya,süren mustafa The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. (2014): 387 - 392.
MLA ARICI Semih,KARAMAN Serkan,Dogru Serkan,KARAMAN Tuğba,TAPAR hakan,ÖZSOY ASKER ZEKİ,KAYA Ziya,süren mustafa The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. , 2014, ss.387 - 392.
AMA ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. . 2014; 387 - 392.
Vancouver ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. . 2014; 387 - 392.
IEEE ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m "The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients." , ss.387 - 392, 2014.
ISNAD ARICI, Semih vd. "The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients". (2014), 387-392.
APA ARICI S, KARAMAN S, Dogru S, KARAMAN T, TAPAR h, ÖZSOY A, KAYA Z, süren m (2014). The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 44(3), 387 - 392.
Chicago ARICI Semih,KARAMAN Serkan,Dogru Serkan,KARAMAN Tuğba,TAPAR hakan,ÖZSOY ASKER ZEKİ,KAYA Ziya,süren mustafa The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 44, no.3 (2014): 387 - 392.
MLA ARICI Semih,KARAMAN Serkan,Dogru Serkan,KARAMAN Tuğba,TAPAR hakan,ÖZSOY ASKER ZEKİ,KAYA Ziya,süren mustafa The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, vol.44, no.3, 2014, ss.387 - 392.
AMA ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2014; 44(3): 387 - 392.
Vancouver ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2014; 44(3): 387 - 392.
IEEE ARICI S,KARAMAN S,Dogru S,KARAMAN T,TAPAR h,ÖZSOY A,KAYA Z,süren m "The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients." Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 44, ss.387 - 392, 2014.
ISNAD ARICI, Semih vd. "The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients". Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 44/3 (2014), 387-392.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 0:33

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları