FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1996224077> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1996224077 endingPage "848" @default.
• W1996224077 startingPage "845" @default.
• W1996224077 abstract "Objective The authors hypothesized that video laryngoscopy (VL) facilitated double-lumen tube (DLT) insertion compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL). Design A retrospective analysis. Setting An academic hospital. Participants Patients older than 18 years of age undergoing thoracic surgery requiring DLT placement between 2005 and 2011. Interventions Patients without airway predictors of difficult intubation who were intubated under DL with Macintosh (DL-MAC, n = 40) or Miller (DL-MIL, n = 44) blades and VL with McGrath MAC (Aircraft Medical, Edinburgh, UK) and C-MAC (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) laryngoscopes (n = 46) were included in the study. Patients who were intubated with both VL devices were grouped into a VL group. Measurements Patients in all 3 groups had comparable preoperative demographics. Mallampati scores and ease of manual ventilation after the induction of anesthesia were also similar in all groups. The Cormack Lehane (C-L) grade views were significantly higher in patients in the DL-MAC than in the DL-MIL and VL groups (p < 0.006). The number of intubation attempts was similar in all 3 groups; however, the percentage of intubation reported to be difficult was higher in the DL-MAC than in the other 2 groups (p = 0.014). No damage to the airway was found in any of the groups. Conclusion DLT placement using VL appeared to overcome some of the limitations of DL-MAC but was similar to DL-MIL. The authors speculated that the ease of placement was related to the improved visualization of the vocal cords because there was a significantly greater number of C-L views 3 and 4 in the DL-MAC group as compared with the VL and DL-MIL groups. Hence, the authors advocate using VL, particularly when the laryngoscopist is inexperienced using DL-MIL for DLT placement. The authors hypothesized that video laryngoscopy (VL) facilitated double-lumen tube (DLT) insertion compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL). A retrospective analysis. An academic hospital. Patients older than 18 years of age undergoing thoracic surgery requiring DLT placement between 2005 and 2011. Patients without airway predictors of difficult intubation who were intubated under DL with Macintosh (DL-MAC, n = 40) or Miller (DL-MIL, n = 44) blades and VL with McGrath MAC (Aircraft Medical, Edinburgh, UK) and C-MAC (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) laryngoscopes (n = 46) were included in the study. Patients who were intubated with both VL devices were grouped into a VL group. Patients in all 3 groups had comparable preoperative demographics. Mallampati scores and ease of manual ventilation after the induction of anesthesia were also similar in all groups. The Cormack Lehane (C-L) grade views were significantly higher in patients in the DL-MAC than in the DL-MIL and VL groups (p < 0.006). The number of intubation attempts was similar in all 3 groups; however, the percentage of intubation reported to be difficult was higher in the DL-MAC than in the other 2 groups (p = 0.014). No damage to the airway was found in any of the groups. DLT placement using VL appeared to overcome some of the limitations of DL-MAC but was similar to DL-MIL. The authors speculated that the ease of placement was related to the improved visualization of the vocal cords because there was a significantly greater number of C-L views 3 and 4 in the DL-MAC group as compared with the VL and DL-MIL groups. Hence, the authors advocate using VL, particularly when the laryngoscopist is inexperienced using DL-MIL for DLT placement." @default.
• W1996224077 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1996224077 creator A5025645999 @default.
• W1996224077 creator A5038220756 @default.
• W1996224077 creator A5044812701 @default.
• W1996224077 creator A5045483590 @default.
• W1996224077 creator A5080102032 @default.
• W1996224077 date "2012-10-01" @default.
• W1996224077 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W1996224077 title "Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Tube Intubation: A Retrospective Analysis" @default.
• W1996224077 cites W1521450967 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W1522127253 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W1836524182 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W1960355647 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2026823987 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2027408751 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2028997017 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2068585843 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2082754806 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2094369592 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2105119499 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2110350925 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2129129065 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2156150190 @default.
• W1996224077 cites W2947850264 @default.
• W1996224077 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2012.01.014" @default.
• W1996224077 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22361488" @default.
• W1996224077 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1996224077 type Work @default.
• W1996224077 sameAs 1996224077 @default.
• W1996224077 citedByCount "34" @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772012 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772013 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772014 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772015 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772016 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772017 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772018 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772019 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772020 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772022 @default.
• W1996224077 countsByYear W19962240772023 @default.
• W1996224077 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1996224077 hasAuthorship W1996224077A5025645999 @default.
• W1996224077 hasAuthorship W1996224077A5038220756 @default.
• W1996224077 hasAuthorship W1996224077A5044812701 @default.
• W1996224077 hasAuthorship W1996224077A5045483590 @default.
• W1996224077 hasAuthorship W1996224077A5080102032 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C105922876 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C2776888792 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C2778716859 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C2910000593 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C105922876 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C141071460 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C167135981 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C2776888792 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C2778716859 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C2910000593 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C42219234 @default.
• W1996224077 hasConceptScore W1996224077C71924100 @default.
• W1996224077 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1996224077 hasLocation W19962240771 @default.
• W1996224077 hasLocation W19962240772 @default.
• W1996224077 hasOpenAccess W1996224077 @default.
• W1996224077 hasPrimaryLocation W19962240771 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W1973834189 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2015838197 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2088331700 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2115262563 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2123885753 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2152901128 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2196165222 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2316932877 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W72969466 @default.
• W1996224077 hasRelatedWork W2092959484 @default.
• W1996224077 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W1996224077 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1996224077 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1996224077 magId "1996224077" @default.
• W1996224077 workType "article" @default.