目的视频喉镜在潜在困难气道的情况下更经常使用。KarlStorz视频探针为颈椎骨折患者提供了优于传统喉镜的明显优势。这项研究旨在比较C-MAC视频喉镜与新型KarlStorz视频探针在模拟颈椎骨折损伤患者中的性能。材料和方法研究,由阿利加赫的贾瓦哈拉尔·尼赫鲁医学院和医院研究委员会和伦理委员会批准,涉及50名在全身麻醉下接受手术的患者。这是一项针对20-60岁,体重30-80公斤的患者的前瞻性随机对照研究。并被归类为美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I级和II级,接受选择性手术治疗。患者被随机分为两组,使用不同的设备进行插管:对照组(N=25)用C-MAC(Mac刀片)视频喉镜(CM)插管,研究组(N=25)用KarlStorz视频探针(VS)插管。麻醉程序包括对所有患者进行详细的麻醉前检查,包括病史回顾,体检,以及基于年龄的必要测试。统一进行标准监测和术前用药。诱导麻醉,并尝试使用适当的设备进行插管,在颈部手动稳定之后。参数,如插管尝试,时间,失败,血液动力学变化,并在整个过程中记录并发症.如果插管不成功,采取了替代措施,手术程序继续进行。结果比较两组患者的插管成功率,CM和VS。在CM组中,所有25名患者(100%)在第一次尝试中成功插管,而在VS组,23例患者(92%)首次插管成功,和两名患者(8%)需要两次尝试。两组尝试次数分布差异无统计学意义(p=0.4915)。CM组平均插管时间为27.24±2.16秒,而在VS组,平均插管时间明显更长,为30.84±6.81秒,差异有统计学意义(p=0.0105)。CM组只有4%的患者需要调整操作,而VS组为0%。尽管这种差异没有统计学意义。记录插管期间设备上的血液发生情况。两组患者血液在设备上的分布没有统计学上的显著差异(p=0.617)。结论本研究比较了两种插管装置的有效性。与KarlStorz视频探针相比,C-MAC视频喉镜显示首次尝试成功插管的比率明显更高,并且所需的尝试更少。与KarlStorz设备相比,C-MAC的插管时间也更短。然而,KarlStorz视频探针在临床环境中表现出与C-MAC视频喉镜相当的性能,两种设备具有相似的安全性和最小的并发症。
Purpose Video laryngoscopes were being used more often in cases of potentially difficult airways. The Karl Storz video stylet offered clear advantages over conventional laryngoscopes for patients with cervical spine fractures. This
study aimed to compare the performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope with the new Karl Storz video stylet in patients with simulated cervical fracture injuries. Material and methods The
study, approved by the Board of Studies and the Ethical Committee of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital in Aligarh, involved 50 patients undergoing operative procedures under general anaesthesia. It was a prospective randomised controlled
study on patients aged 20-60, weighing 30-80 kg, and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grades I and II, admitted for elective operative procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups for intubation using different devices: the control group (N = 25) was intubated with the C-MAC (Mac blade) video laryngoscope (CM), and the
study group (N = 25) was intubated with the Karl Storz video stylet (VS). The anaesthetic procedure involved a detailed pre-anesthetic check-up for all patients, including a medical history review, physical examination, and necessary tests based on age. Standard monitoring and pre-medication were administered uniformly. Anesthesia was induced and intubation was attempted using appropriate devices, following manual stabilisation of the neck. Parameters such as intubation attempts, time taken, failures, hemodynamic changes, and complications were recorded throughout the procedure. If intubation was unsuccessful, alternative measures were taken, and the operative procedure proceeded. Results The intubation success rates were compared between the two groups, CM and VS. In the CM group, all 25 patients (100%) were successfully intubated on the first attempt, while in the VS group, 23 patients (92%) were successfully intubated on the first attempt, and two patients (8%) required two attempts. The difference in the distribution of the number of attempts between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.4915). The mean intubation time in the CM group was 27.24 ± 2.16 seconds, while in the VS group, the mean intubation time was significantly longer at 30.84 ± 6.81 seconds, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0105). Adjustment manoeuvres were required in only 4% of patients in the CM group compared to 0% in the VS group, although this difference was not statistically significant. The occurrence of blood on the device during intubation was recorded, and the distribution of patients with blood on the device among the two groups did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.617). Conclusion This
study compared the effectiveness of two intubation devices. The C-MAC video laryngoscope showed a significantly higher rate of first-attempt successful intubations and required fewer attempts compared to the Karl Storz video stylet. The C-MAC also had shorter intubation times compared to the Karl Storz device. However, the Karl Storz video stylet demonstrated comparable performance to the C-MAC video laryngoscope in clinical settings, with both devices having similar safety profiles and minimal complications.