The efficacy of OptiScope PM201 video system: comparison to conventional Macintosh laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation method.
- Author:
Hae Gyeong LEE
1
;
Seong Wook HONG
;
Oh Dae KWON
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea. hsuaa@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Efficacy;
Laryngoscope;
Sore throat
- MeSH:
Anesthesia, General;
Blood Pressure;
Heart Rate;
Hemodynamics;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Incidence;
Intubation;
Intubation, Intratracheal*;
Laryngoscopes;
Pharyngitis
- From:Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2013;8(4):240-244
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Optiscope PM201 is a newly developed video stylet device. In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, it offers a significantly improved laryngeal view and facilitates endotracheal intubation. The present study was performed to compare the general efficiency and the cardiovascular responses generated by Macintosh and Optiscope PM201 systems during endotracheal intubation. METHODS: This study included 66 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia. All patients were randomly allocated into two groups: OptiScope PM201 (group O) and Macintosh (group M). Systolic, mean and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, MBP, DBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded just prior to intubation (Tbase), 1 minute after intubation (T0), and over the following 10 minutes at 5 minute intervals 5, 10 minutes after intubation (T1, T2). Time for intubation and degree of sore throat were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in SBP, MBP, DBP, HR, incidence of sore throat and time for intubation between both groups. The incidence of oral bleeding was none in patient in the Group O versus 1 in group M (P = 0.306). CONCLUSIONS: OptiScope PM201 video system in endotracheal intubation did not increase hemodynamic changes and postoperative airway complications comparing to the use of Macintosh laryngoscope.
