Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErdivanli, Basar
dc.contributor.authorSen, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorBatcik, Sule
dc.contributor.authorKoyuncu, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorKazdal, Hizir
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-19T19:41:22Z
dc.date.available2020-12-19T19:41:22Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn0034-7094
dc.identifier.issn1806-907X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjan.2018.04.003
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/1764
dc.descriptionWOS: 000441502600010en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 30005810en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground and objectives: We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods: A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. Results and conclusions: First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5-1.4s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3-4.6s, p< 0.001). the difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8-4.4s, p <0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p< 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation. (C) 2018 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.en_US
dc.language.isoporen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Science Incen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAirway managementen_US
dc.subjectDirect laryngoscopyen_US
dc.subjectEndotracheal intubationen_US
dc.subjectGeneral anesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectVideo laryngoscopyen_US
dc.titleComparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trialen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bjan.2018.04.003
dc.identifier.volume68en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage499en_US
dc.identifier.endpage506en_US
dc.ri.editoaen_US
dc.relation.journalRevista Brasileira de Anestesiologiaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record