Preview

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE

Advanced search

EXPERIENCE OF VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPY DURING TRACHEAL INTUBATION FOR EMERGENCY INDICATIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST AND RESUSCITATOR

https://doi.org/10.24884/2072-6716-2020-21-3-33-38

Abstract

Objectives. To assess the advantages and disadvantages of videolaryngoscopy as one of methods of tracheal intubation which is being widely used as an alternative to direct laryngoscopy in anesthesiologist’s practice.

Material and methods. Over 100 of tracheal intubations were conducted with the use of videolaryngoscope, along with a routine use of the direct laryngoscopy. The results of 48 intubations are discussed. 4 clinical cases are presented in this article.

Results. Cormack-Lehane grade I view was obtained in 39 cases (81,3%), Cormack-Lehane grade II - in 9 patients (18,8%). First attempt intubation was performed in 43 cases (89,6%), in 4 cases intubation was successful after second attempt (8,3%), failed intubation was in 1 case (2,1%). The mean duration of successful intubation was 36,9 sec. Certain difficulties occured during intubation related with the advancement of the endotracheal tube. Technical solutions are given for some of intraprocedural conditions.

Conclusions. Videolaryngoscopy is a safe and effective method of tracheal intubation. Although this method is not lacking in disadvantages it has a number of advantages, main of which is the improved larynx visualization. In our opinion, this method can not completely replace direct laryngoscopy in anesthesiolodist’s practice, but may serve as an adjuvant in case of difficult intubation.

About the Author

V. V. Vasilev
Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute named after M. F. Vladimirsky
Russian Federation


References

1. Chemsian R. V., Bhanaker S., Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy // International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science. 2014. Vol. 4, Issue 1. P. 35–41.

2. De Jong A., Molinary N., Conseil M. et al. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for orotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Intensive Care Med. 2014. Vol. 40, No. 5. P. 629–639.

3. Lewis S. R., Butler A. R., Parker J. et al. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation // Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016. Nov. 15. Vol. 11.

4. Griesdale D. E., Liu D., McKinney J. et al. Glidescope video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and metaanalysis // Can. J. Anaesth. 2012. Vol. 59, No. 1. P. 41–52.

5. Lacticova V., Koening M., Mayo P. H. Video laryngoscopy is associated with increased first pass success and decreased rate of esophageal intubations during urgent endotracheal intubation in a medical intensive care unit when compared to direct laryngoscopy // J. Intensive Care Med. 2015. Vol. 30, No. 1. P. 44–48.

6. Mosier J. M., Whitmore S. P., Bloom J. W. et al. Video laryngoscopy improves intubation success and reduces esophageal intubations compared to direct laryngoscopy in the medical intensive care unit // Crit Care. 2013. Vol. 17, No. 5. P. 237.

7. Silverberg M. J., Li N., Acquah S. O. et al. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial // Crit. Care Med. 2015. Vol. 43, No. 3. P. 636–641.

8. Kory P., Guevarra K., Mathew J. P. et al. The impact of video laryngoscopy use during urgent endotracheal intubation in the critically ill // Anesth. Analg. 2013. Vol. 117, No. 1. P. 144–149.

9. Ibinson J. W., Ezaru C. S., Cormican D. S. et al. GlideScope Use improves intubation success rates: an observational study using propensity score matching // BMC Anesthesiol. 2014. 14. P. 101. Published online 2014. Nov. 5. doi: 10.1186/1471–2253–14–101.


Review

For citations:


Vasilev V.V. EXPERIENCE OF VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPY DURING TRACHEAL INTUBATION FOR EMERGENCY INDICATIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST AND RESUSCITATOR. EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE. 2020;21(3):33-38. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/2072-6716-2020-21-3-33-38

Views: 753


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2072-6716 (Print)