目标:困难的气道情况,如三端和颈部刚性,可能禁止标准中线经口气管插管。已经报道了使用光纤镜或刚性插管探针从磨牙后空间插管的替代途径。没有研究研究使用视频插管探针进行磨牙后插管的适用性。这项研究比较了在磨牙后和标准中线方法中使用视频插管探针进行困难的气道管理。
方法:一项随机交叉人体模型研究于2021年1月至2021年6月在三级教学医院进行。共纳入36名急诊内科住院医师及主治医师,所有人都参加了有关以标准中线和后磨牙方法进行视频插管的教育课程。然后,他们以随机顺序对人体模型进行了7次插管,每次不同的气道设置.插管成功的持续时间,首次尝试成功率,总体成功率,尝试次数,记录并比较自我报告的难度。
结果:研究中纳入了36名急诊医师。与标准中线方法相比,在困难的气道情况下,如张口受限和颈部僵硬,使用磨牙后入路显著缩短了成功插管的持续时间(44.77[28.58-63.65]vs.120[93.86-120]s,p<0.001)且无舌头水肿(31.5[22.57-57.74]vs.44.72[36.23-65.34]s,p=0.012)。此外,在张口受限和颈部僵硬的情况下,磨牙后入路增加了首次尝试成功率(91.67%vs.16.67%,p<0.001)和无(97.22%vs.72.22%,p=0.012)舌水肿。在上述两种情况下,反磨牙方法的自我报告难度也明显低于标准方法。
结论:对于具有困难气道特征(如张口受限)的特定患者,使用视频插管探针的磨牙后插管方法可能是一个有希望的选择。颈部刚度,和水肿的舌头。
OBJECTIVE: Difficult airway situations, such as trismus and neck rigidity, may prohibit standard midline orotracheal intubation. An alternative route of intubation from the
retromolar space using a fiberoptic scope or rigid intubation stylet has been reported. There is no study investigating the applicability of
retromolar intubation using a video intubating stylet. This study comparatively analyzed difficult airway management using a video intubating stylet in the retromolar and standard midline approaches.
METHODS: A randomized crossover manikin study was conducted between January 2021 and June 2021 at a tertiary teaching hospital. Thirty-six emergency medicine residents and attending physicians were enrolled, and all participated in an educational course regarding video intubating stylet in standard midline and retromolar approaches. Then, they performed both intubation approaches in a randomized order on a manikin seven times with different airway settings each time. The duration of successful intubation, first attempt success rate, overall success rate, number of attempts, and self-reported difficulty were recorded and compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-six emergency physicians were included in the study. Compared with the standard midline approach, the use of the
retromolar approach significantly reduced the duration of successful intubation in difficult airway scenarios such as limited mouth opening and neck rigidity with (44.77 [28.58-63.65] vs. 120 [93.86-120] s, p < 0.001) and without tongue edema (31.5 [22.57-57.74] vs. 44.72 [36.23-65.34] s, p = 0.012). Furthermore, the
retromolar approach increased the first attempt success rate in scenarios of limited mouth opening and neck rigidity with (91.67% vs. 16.67%, p < 0.001) and without (97.22% vs. 72.22%, p = 0.012) tongue edema. The self-reported difficulty was also significantly lower with the
retromolar approach than with the standard approach in the above two scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: The retromolar approach for intubation using a video intubating stylet may be a promising choice for selected patients with a combination of difficult airway features such as limited mouth opening, neck rigidity, and edematous tongue.