AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe incidence of Cormack–Lehane score 1 was higher in Group G than Group Mwhile Cormack–Lehane score 2 was higher in Group M.Conclusion: We concluded that the GlideScope video laryngoscope provided better glottis visualization, but prolonged intubation time.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objectives: We aim to investigate intubation conditions, intubation times, and hemodynamic response with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope or the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children older than one year.Methods: Eighty patients aged 1–12 years, scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia with endotrachealintubation were included in a prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. Exclusion criteria were risk of pulmonary aspiration,craniofacial malformation, difficult intubation, emergency surgery, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and hemodynamicinstability. After standard anesthesia induction, patients were randomized into two groups. The group G patients (n=40) were intubated with the GlideScope and the group M patients (n=40) were intubated with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Intubation time,number of attempts, Cormack–Lehane score, airway maneuvers, and visual analog score were recorded. Hemodynamic variableswere recorded before and after anesthesia induction, at intubation, and 1., 3., and 5. minutes after intubation. Student’s t-test,Mann–Whitney U test, and the χ2 test were used for statistical analysis, with p<0.05 considered significant.Results: The demographic data, operation time and hemodynamic parameters were similar between the two groups. The intubation time was longer in Group G than Group M. The incidence of Cormack–Lehane score 1 was higher in Group G than Group Mwhile Cormack–Lehane score 2 was higher in Group M.Conclusion: We concluded that the GlideScope video laryngoscope provided better glottis visualization, but prolonged intubation time. There was no superiorty on hemodynamic effect with the video laryngoscope.