No abstract

No abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation for cervically unstable patients remains a challenging procedure. We compared the utility of a relatively new promising airway tool ''GlideScope" (GL) with the routinely used McCoy laryngoscope in our critical care unit. Methods: Forty intubated patients with suspected or proved cervical spine injury who were scheduled for replacing a conventional endotracheal tube (ETT) by ETT with subglottic suction facility were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly intubated using either GL ''G group" or McCoy laryngoscope ''M group". The first attempt was performed by anesthetic residents inexperienced in using both scopes. In case of failure, a second attempt was done by a consultant anesthetist using these tools masterly. If these two attempts failed to intubate the trachea, a third one was attempted using a fiberoscope by the same consultant anesthetist. We compared the intubation profiles of both scopes. Results: There was a higher success rate of primary intubation attempts among the G group population (85% versus 55% in the M group ''P value 0.03"). Moreover, all secondary intubation attempts succeeded in intubating the trachea. The mean time for primary intubation attempts was statistically longer in the M group (27.6 ± 2.7 S versus 19.8 ± 5.2 S in the G group ''P value < 0.001"). However, there was no statistical difference as regards the mean time of intubation among the study population during the secondary intubation attempts. The Cormack and Lehane score and the percentage of required optimization maneuvers were significantly higher in the M group for both attempts. Conclusion: In critical care setting, GL is an excellent primary intubating tool for patients with potential cervical spine instability even if being performed by inexperienced users.

No abstract

Background: Tracheal intubation is most usually facilitated by the use of a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Video and indirect laryngoscopes are becoming more significant tools in the management of the airways in children. Objective: To compare the time of intubation, the number of tries, and the success rate of pediatric intubation by beginner anesthesiologists using a video laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope.Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized, single-blind clinical was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals on 52 children aged from 2-6 years who were undergoing elective surgeries. VL Group: (n; 26 patients) intubation using video assisted laryngoscopy (Hugemed type). ML Group: (n; 26 patients) intubation using conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Duration of intubation, number of trial, hemodynamic response as well as oxygen saturation were recorded at different intervals (base line, after induction, during intubation, after intubation) with assessment of complications.Results: As regard the efficacy and the safety of intubation those patients in ML group had lower intubation time than VL group. There was statistical difference as regard complications of endotracheal intubation as trauma, which was higher in ML group. Conclusion:With the use of a video-aided laryngoscope, it is possible to safely and under supervision to insert an airway into a patient with a difficult airway.