明视插管软镜与可视喉镜在肥胖患者气管插管中的比较

摘要： 目的??比较明视插管软镜与可视喉镜在肥胖患者经口气管插管中的临床效果。方法?择期经口气管插管全麻手术肥胖患者60例，体质指数（BMI）>30 kg/m2，美国麻醉师协会分级（ASA）Ⅰ或Ⅱ级，年龄22～60岁。采用随机数字表法将患者分为两组：明视插管软镜组（V组）和可视喉镜组（K组），每组30例。记录两组患者Cormark-Lehane镜下分级（简称C-L分级）、气管插管时间、试插次数、气管插管成功率及气管插管并发症。结果?两组均声门暴露（C-L分级）良好（P >0.05），V组和K组气管插管时间、气管插管成功率及一次气管插管成功率比较差异无统计学意义[（24.4±11.6）vs （22.3±13.2） s、100.0% vs 100.0%、90.0% vs 86.7%]（均P >0.05）。两组气管插管并发症比较差异无统计学意义（P >0.05）。结论?明视插管软镜和可视喉镜均适用于肥胖患者气管插管，具有声门暴露良好、插管快速、成功率高和并发症少等优点。
Abstract: Objective?To compare the clinical efficacy of orotracheal intubation with video intubationscope and visual laryngoscope in obese patients.?Methods?60 ASA I or II obese patients, BMI >30 kg/m2, aged 22 ~ 60 years, underwent elective surgery requiring orotracheal intubation were randomly divided into two groups: the video intubationscope group (Group V) and the visual laryngoscope group (group K), 30 cases in each. Cormark-Lehane grade (C-L classification), tracheal intubation time, total intubation attempts, success rate of tracheal intubation and complications of tracheal intubation were recorded.?Results?Good glottic exposure view (C-L classification) was achieved in the two groups (P > 0.05), there were no significant difference in tracheal intubation time, the total success rate and the one-time success rate of tracheal intubation between the V and K groups [(24.4 ± 11.6) s vs (22.3 ± 13.2) s, 100.0% vs 100.0%, 90.0% vs 86.7%] (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the complications of tracheal intubation between the two groups (P > 0.05).?Conclusion?Video intubationscope and visual laryngoscope are suitable for tracheal intubation in obese patients, and has an advantage of good glottis exposure view, rapid intubation, great successful rate and few complications.