Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sut,Esra Yildiz
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Gunal,Solmaz, Yazar,Mehmet Akif, Dikmen,Beyazit
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000300238
Resumo: Abstract Purpose: In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of intubations by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma. Method: 134 patients were included in the study. All patients were placed cervical collar for a simulated cervical trauma. Patients were allocated randomly into three groups: Group NI (n = 45) intubation with Macintosh laryngoscopy, Group GEB (n = 45) intubation with Gum Elastic Bougie, and Group ILMA (n = 44) intubation with Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway. The number of intubation attempts, success of intubation, duration of complete visualization of the larynx, duration of intubation, user's performance score, hemodynamic changes and the observed complications were recorded. Results: Success of intubation in the first attempt was highest in Group GEB while it was lowest in Group ILMA. Regarding the intubation success, rates of successful intubation were 95.6%, 84.4% and 65.9% in Groups GEB, NI, and ILMA, respectively. Durations of visualization of larynx and intubation were shorter in Groups NI and GEB than in Group ILMA. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Groups NI and GEB. The number of patients with "good" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group GEB while the number of patients with "poor" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group ILMA (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that GEB, which is cheap and easily accessible, should be an advantageous choice in cervical trauma patients for both the easeness of intubation and patient morbidity and mortality.
id SBA-1_4fbb3d259fa80bc1afec906065b7f6a5
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942017000300238
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical traumaDifficult airwayCervical traumaAbstract Purpose: In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of intubations by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma. Method: 134 patients were included in the study. All patients were placed cervical collar for a simulated cervical trauma. Patients were allocated randomly into three groups: Group NI (n = 45) intubation with Macintosh laryngoscopy, Group GEB (n = 45) intubation with Gum Elastic Bougie, and Group ILMA (n = 44) intubation with Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway. The number of intubation attempts, success of intubation, duration of complete visualization of the larynx, duration of intubation, user's performance score, hemodynamic changes and the observed complications were recorded. Results: Success of intubation in the first attempt was highest in Group GEB while it was lowest in Group ILMA. Regarding the intubation success, rates of successful intubation were 95.6%, 84.4% and 65.9% in Groups GEB, NI, and ILMA, respectively. Durations of visualization of larynx and intubation were shorter in Groups NI and GEB than in Group ILMA. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Groups NI and GEB. The number of patients with "good" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group GEB while the number of patients with "poor" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group ILMA (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that GEB, which is cheap and easily accessible, should be an advantageous choice in cervical trauma patients for both the easeness of intubation and patient morbidity and mortality.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2017-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000300238Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.67 n.3 2017reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2016.03.001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSut,Esra YildizGunal,SolmazYazar,Mehmet AkifDikmen,Beyaziteng2017-05-23T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942017000300238Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2017-05-23T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
title Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
spellingShingle Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
Sut,Esra Yildiz
Difficult airway
Cervical trauma
title_short Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
title_full Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
title_fullStr Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
title_sort Comparison of effectiveness of intubation by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma
author Sut,Esra Yildiz
author_facet Sut,Esra Yildiz
Gunal,Solmaz
Yazar,Mehmet Akif
Dikmen,Beyazit
author_role author
author2 Gunal,Solmaz
Yazar,Mehmet Akif
Dikmen,Beyazit
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sut,Esra Yildiz
Gunal,Solmaz
Yazar,Mehmet Akif
Dikmen,Beyazit
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Difficult airway
Cervical trauma
topic Difficult airway
Cervical trauma
description Abstract Purpose: In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of intubations by way of "Gum Elastic Bougie" and "Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway" in endotracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical trauma. Method: 134 patients were included in the study. All patients were placed cervical collar for a simulated cervical trauma. Patients were allocated randomly into three groups: Group NI (n = 45) intubation with Macintosh laryngoscopy, Group GEB (n = 45) intubation with Gum Elastic Bougie, and Group ILMA (n = 44) intubation with Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway. The number of intubation attempts, success of intubation, duration of complete visualization of the larynx, duration of intubation, user's performance score, hemodynamic changes and the observed complications were recorded. Results: Success of intubation in the first attempt was highest in Group GEB while it was lowest in Group ILMA. Regarding the intubation success, rates of successful intubation were 95.6%, 84.4% and 65.9% in Groups GEB, NI, and ILMA, respectively. Durations of visualization of larynx and intubation were shorter in Groups NI and GEB than in Group ILMA. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Groups NI and GEB. The number of patients with "good" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group GEB while the number of patients with "poor" intubation performance was significantly higher in Group ILMA (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that GEB, which is cheap and easily accessible, should be an advantageous choice in cervical trauma patients for both the easeness of intubation and patient morbidity and mortality.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000300238
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000300238
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2016.03.001
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.67 n.3 2017
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126629120835584