مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

video

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

sound

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Persian Version

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

View:

54
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Download:

45
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

GlideScope®,Versus C-MAC®,Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?

Pages

  0-0

Abstract

 Background: The emergence of Video Laryngoscopy in the management of Pediatric airways has been invaluable as it has been known that these patients are prone to airway complications. Video laryngoscopes are proven to improve glottic view in both normal and difficult airways in Pediatric patients. The time taken to intubate using these devices is inconsistent. Objectives: This study was designed to compare the time to intubate using two common video laryngoscopes, C-MAC®, , and GlideScope®, , aimed at Pediatric patients age 3-12 years old. Methods: ARandomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 ASA I or II patients, aged 3-12 years oldwhounderwent elective surgery using endotracheal tube. They were divided into group 1 patients who were intubated using C-MAC®,video laryngoscope versus group 2 patients who were intubated with GlideScope®,video laryngoscope. Laryngoscopists were all anesthetists with experience in both C-MAC®,and GlideScope®,intubation. Time to intubate and intubation attempts were measured. Any extra maneuver, airway complications, and laryngoscopist satisfaction scores were also recorded. Results: Total time to intubate was significantly longer in GlideScope®,group than in C-MAC®,group (P < 0. 001). Both devices managed to achieve excellent glottic views. The first pass attempt success rate was similar between both devices. There was no difference betweenrequirement of extramaneuversto assist intubations. Therewerealsonoadverse events associated with all the intubations. The satisfaction score of anesthetists was comparable to each other. Conclusions: Eventhoughintubation time using GlideScope®,is longer, both devices give excellent glottic view, comparable success intubation, and anesthetists satisfaction score.

Cites

  • No record.
  • References

  • No record.
  • Cite

    APA: Copy

    Teo, Rufinah, Mian, Nornafiza, Nazihah Sayed Masri, Syarifah Noor, Mohd Mahdi, Siti Nidzwani, Nie, Yeoh Chih, & Nor, Nadia Md. (2021). GlideScope®,Versus C-MAC®,Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?. IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 31(4), 0-0. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/975254/en

    Vancouver: Copy

    Teo Rufinah, Mian Nornafiza, Nazihah Sayed Masri Syarifah Noor, Mohd Mahdi Siti Nidzwani, Nie Yeoh Chih, Nor Nadia Md. GlideScope®,Versus C-MAC®,Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?. IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS[Internet]. 2021;31(4):0-0. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/975254/en

    IEEE: Copy

    Rufinah Teo, Nornafiza Mian, Syarifah Noor Nazihah Sayed Masri, Siti Nidzwani Mohd Mahdi, Yeoh Chih Nie, and Nadia Md Nor, “GlideScope®,Versus C-MAC®,Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?,” IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 0–0, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/975254/en

    Related Journal Papers

  • No record.
  • Related Seminar Papers

  • No record.
  • Related Plans

  • No record.
  • Recommended Workshops






    Move to top
    telegram sharing button
    whatsapp sharing button
    linkedin sharing button
    twitter sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    sharethis sharing button