【罂粟摘要】GlideRite和Parker Flex-It管芯在疑似困难插管中促进可视喉镜插管的比较:一项随机对照研究

GlideRite和Parker Flex-It管芯在疑似困难插管中促进可视喉镜插管的比较:一项随机对照研究

贵州医科大学麻醉与心脏电生理课题组

翻译：安丽  编辑：马艳燕  审校：曹莹

NO.  1 

 背景

可视喉镜(GVL)广泛应用于困难气道的患者，可提供良好的声门视野。然而，镜片的角度可能会使气管插管(ETT)的插入和推进比直视喉镜更困难，因此建议使用导管芯。这项随机对照试验比较了GlideRite和Parker Flex-It管芯的配合使用，以便于在疑似困难插管中使用可视喉镜插管。

NO. 2 

 方法 

选择需实施气管插管全身麻醉的54名疑似困难插管的患者，随机分为2组：GRS组：GVL插管时配合使用GRS；PFS组：GVL插管时配合使用PFS。记录插管总时间（TIT）、100 mm视觉模拟评分（VAS）、首次插管成功率、喉部手法辅助的使用率、助手辅助插管推进率及并发症。

NO. 3 

 结果

GRS组和PFS组在TIT方面没有显著差异（GRS组为50.3±12.0秒，PFS组为57.8±18.8秒，P=0.108）。然而，根据VAS评分，PFS组比GRS组插管更困难（P=0.011）。GRS组ETT由助手从管芯中推进的病例比PFS组更常见（P=0.002）。两组并发症的总发生率无显著差异。

NO. 4 

 结论 

在有疑似困难气道的患者中，使用PFS或GRS在TIT上没有差异。然而，进行GVL插管时配合使用PFS气管插管比GRS气管插管更困难。

  STRAWBERRY 

原始文献来源：

Ji Won Bak, Yeonji Noh , Juyoun Kim, Byeongmun Hwang, Seongsik Kang, Heejeong Son, and Minsoo Kim.Comparison between GlideRite® rigid stylet and Parker Flex-It™ stylet to facilitate GlideScope intubation in simulated difficult intubation: a randomized controlled study.Anesth Pain Med 2022;17:104-111.doi.org/10.17085/apm.21095.

英文原文

Comparison between GlideRite® rigid stylet and Parker Flex-It™ stylet to facilitate GlideScope intubation in simulated difficult intubation: a randomized controlled study

Background:The GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) is widely used in patients with difficult airways and provides a good glottic view. However, the acute angle of the blade can make insertion and advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) more difficult than direct laryngoscopy, and the use of a stylet is recommended. This randomized controlled trial compared Parker Flex-It™ stylet (PFS) with GlideRite® rigid stylet (GRS) to facilitate intubation with the GVL in simulated difficult intubations.

Methods:Fifty-four patients were randomly allocated to undergo GVL intubation using either GRS (GRS group) or PFS (PFS group). The total intubation time (TIT), 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for ease of intubation, success rate at the first attempt, use of laryngeal manipulation, tube advancement rate by assistant, and complications were recorded.

Results:There was no significant difference between the GRS and PFS groups regarding TIT (50.3 ± 12.0 s in the GRS group and 57.8 ± 18.8 s in the PFS group, P = 0.108). However, intubation was more difficult in the PFS group than in the GRS group according to VAS score (P = 0.011). Cases in which the ETT was advanced from the stylet by an assistant, were more frequent in the GRS group than in the PFS group (P = 0.002). The overall incidence of possible complications was not significantly different.

Conclusions:In patients with a simulated difficult airway, there was no difference in TIT using either the PFS or GRS. However, endotracheal intubation with PFS is more difficult to perform than GRS.