PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of an attachable video laryngoscope (AVL) by attaching a camera and a monitor to a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (CML). Normal and tongue edema airway scenarios were simulated using a manikin. Twenty physicians performed tracheal intubations using CML, AVL, Pentax Airwayscope® (AWS), and McGrath MAC® (MAC) in each scenario. Ten physicians who had clinical experience in using tracheal intubation were designated as the skilled group, and another ten physicians who were affiliated with other departments and had little clinical experience using tracheal intubation were designated as the unskilled group. The time required for intubation and the success rate were recorded. The degree of difficulty of use and glottic view assessment were scored by participants. All 20 participants successfully completed the study. There was no difference in tracheal intubation success rate and intubation time in the normal airway scenario in both skilled and unskilled groups. In the experienced group, AWS had the highest success rate (100%) in the tongue edema airway scenario, followed by AVL (60%), MAC (60%), and CML (10%) (p = 0.001). The time required to intubate using AWS was significantly shorter than that with AVL (10.2 s vs. 19.2 s) or MAC (10.2 s vs. 20.4 s, p = 0.007). The difficulty of using AVL was significantly lower than that of CML (7.8 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). For the experienced group, AVL was interpreted as being inferior to AWS but better than MAC. Similarly, in the unskilled group, AVL had a similar success rate and tracheal intubation time as MAC in the tongue edema scenario, but this was not statistically significant. The difficulty of using AVL was significantly lower than that of CML (8.8 vs. 3.3; p < 0.001). AVL may be an alternative for VL.
摘要：
这项研究的目的是通过将摄像机和监视器连接到传统的Macintosh喉镜（CML）来评估可连接视频喉镜（AVL）的实用性。使用人体模型模拟正常和舌水肿气道情况。二十名医生使用CML进行了气管插管，AVL,PentaxAirwayscope®(AWS),和McGrathMAC®(MAC)在每个场景中。将10名有使用气管插管临床经验的医师指定为熟练组，另外10名与其他科室有关联且几乎没有使用气管插管临床经验的医师被指定为非熟练组.记录插管所需时间和成功率。参与者对使用难度和声门视图评估进行评分。所有20名参与者都成功完成了这项研究。在正常气道情况下，熟练组和不熟练组的气管插管成功率和插管时间均无差异。在有经验的群体中，AWS在舌水肿气道场景中成功率最高(100%),其次是AVL（60%），MAC（60%），慢性粒细胞白血病（10%）（p=0.001）。使用AWS插管所需的时间明显短于AVL（10.2svs.19.2s)或MAC(10.2svs.20.4s，p=0.007)。使用AVL的难度明显低于CML（7.8vs.2.8；p<0.001）。对于有经验的群体来说，AVL被解释为劣于AWS，但优于MAC。同样，在不熟练的群体中，在舌水肿情况下，AVL的成功率和气管插管时间与MAC相似，但这没有统计学意义。使用AVL的难度明显低于CML（8.8vs.3.3；p<0.001）。AVL可以是VL的替代方案。
