Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 07/08/2021
Abstract Views: 211
Views PDF: 150
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v504i1.882
Issue
Vol. 504 No. 1 (2021)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Anh Khoa, D. ., & Quốc Kính, N. . (2021). STUDY THE EFFICACY OF ASSISTED INTUBATION FOR THE PATIENS WITH CERVICAL SPINAL SURGERY. Vietnam Medical Journal, 504(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v504i1.882

STUDY THE EFFICACY OF ASSISTED INTUBATION FOR THE PATIENS WITH CERVICAL SPINAL SURGERY

Dương Anh Khoa1,, Nguyễn Quốc Kính2
1 General Hospital Of Agricultural
2 Vietnam-Germany Friendship Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To Compare the efficacy of assisted intubation with the Macintosh in the patients with cervical spinal surgery and complication this methods. Methods: In the 160 patients with cervical spinal surgery included group I using intubation with assisted video (n = 80) and group II with Macintosh (n = 80). Follow up the first time success ratio, the Cormack and Lehane, POGO, patients should be cartilage ring pressed down, patient should be put the neck up; the times (seconds) of the intubation, sore throat, hoarse voice after surgery. Results: the number of patients needed to be pressed cartilage ring down, to be put the neck up in the group I less than that in the group II; the POGO in group I is higher than that in group II (p <0.05); Cormack and Lehane levels in group I were lower than that in group II with p <0.05; Intubation time: group I was faster than group II (p < 0.05); The success rate of group I was higher than that of group II with statistical significance p < 0.05; the rate of sore throat, hoarseness after surgery of group I was lower than that of group II with p < 0.05. Conclusions: the number of patients needed to be pressed cartilage ring down, to be put the neck up in the group I less than that in the group II (p <0.05), the POGO in group I is better than that in group II; Intubation with video assissted: Cormack and Lehane levels in group I were lower than that in group II with p <0.05. The first successful intubated: group I was higher than that of group II (p < 0.05); Intubation time: group I was faster than group II (p < 0.05); the rate of sore throat, hoarseness after surgery of group I was lower than that of group II with p < 0.05.

Article Details

Keywords

Intubation with video assissted, Video laryngoscopy

References

1. Altair da Silva Costa et al (2012), “A video-Assisted endotreal Suture technique for correction of distal tracheal laceration after intubation”, The society of thoracic surgeons 0003-4975.
2. Atabak Najafi et al (2014), “Postoperative sore throat after laryngoscopy with Macintosh or glidescope video laryngoscope blade in normal airway patients”, Anesth pain med 3(3); et 5136.
3. F. S. Xeu, G. H. Zhang, J. Liu et al (2007), “The clinical assessmant of Glidescope in orotracheal intubation under general anesthesia”, Minerva anestesiol 73:451-7.
4. Gusen Seok Choi et al (2011), “A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways”, Korean j Anesthesiol 60(5): 339-343.
5. Kalingarayar S et all (2017). Airway trauma during diffcult intubation from the frying pan into the fre?, Indian J Anaesth 2017, 61, 437-439.
6. Maria Michailldou, Terence O’Keeffe, Jarrod M.Mosier et al (2012), “Acomparison of Video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the Emergency Intubation of Trauma Patients”, World journal of Surgey DOI 10.1007/s00268-104-2845-z.
7. Michael F. Aziz, M.D., Dawn Dillman, M.D., et al (2012), “Comparative Effectiveness of the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope versus Direct Laryngoscopy in the Setting of the Predicted Difficult Airway”, Anesthesiology; 116: 515-7.
8. Roya Ymul MD et al (2016), “Comparison of three video laryngoscopy devices to direct laryngoscopy for intubating obese patients: a randomized trial”, Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 31, 71-77.
9. Roya Yumul MD, Ofelia L. Elvir MD, Paul F.White PhD et al (2016), “Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to a flexible fiberoptic scope for intubation with cervical spine immobilization”, Journal of Anesthesia 31, 46-52.