Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorSaracoglu, Ayten
dc.contributor.authorDal, Didem
dc.contributor.authorBaygin, Omer
dc.contributor.authorGogus, Fevzi Yilmaz
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T15:57:22Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T15:57:22Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn2149-0937
dc.identifier.issn2149-276X
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2016.79553
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/2501
dc.descriptionWOS: 000382992900004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 27366562en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Training students on simulators before allowing their direct contact with patients is well accepted. There is no clinical or manikin-based simulation study in the literature comparing tracheal intubation with Airtraq, laryngeal mask airway (LMA) CTrach and Macintosh laryngoscopes performed by medical students having no prior intubation experience. Methods: After obtaining written informed consents, 123 participants were included in the study. The participants were asked to intubate the manikin five times with each device randomly. After all the participants had completed their fifth intubations, the measurements were performed. The primary outcome variables were the first-attempt success rate and the time for a successful intubation, while the secondary outcome variables were to determine the scores of dental trauma, the difficulty visual analogue scale and the optimization manoeuvres. Results: The LMA CTrach group revealed a significantly higher number of intubation attempts. The mean time for a successful intubation was the longest in the LMA CTrach group (17.66 +/- 8.22 s, p<0.05). Students defined the Airtraq as the easiest to use and the Macintosh laryngoscope as the most difficult device to use and learn. Dental trauma severity was significantly lower in the Airtraq group than in the other groups (p<0.05), and it was found to be 0 in 81.1% in the Airtraq group. The head extension optimization manoeuvre rate was significantly higher with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the Airtraq laryngoscope (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study, in which different types of laryngoscopes were compared, revealed that the Airtraq laryngoscope has advantages, such as shorter intubation duration, less additional optimization manoeuvres, less dental trauma intensity and is easier to learn compared with the LMA CTrach and Macintosh laryngoscopes.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAVESen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5152/TJAR.2016.79553en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAirwayen_US
dc.subjecttracheal intubationen_US
dc.subjectlaryngoscopeen_US
dc.titleAirtraq, LMA CTrach and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Tracheal Intubation Training: A Randomized Comparative Manikin Studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalTURKISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY AND REANIMATIONen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.volume44en_US
dc.identifier.startpage76en_US
dc.identifier.endpage80en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.department-temp[Saracoglu, Ayten -- Dal, Didem -- Baygin, Omer -- Gogus, Fevzi Yilmaz] Marmara Univ, Dept Anaesthesiol & Reanimat, Sch Med, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster