4 242

Cited 0 times in

Comparison of GlideScope(®) versus Macintosh laryngoscope for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body: a randomized cross-over cadaver study

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author김민정-
dc.contributor.author정성필-
dc.contributor.author정현수-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T17:38:58Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-19T17:38:58Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.issn0300-9572-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/91808-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether GlideScope(®) is an effective and acceptable method for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted in 28 first year emergency residents with little prior airway management experience. Participants extracted hypopharyngeal foreign bodies using a Macintosh laryngoscope and GlideScope(®) with Magill and Sponge forceps. The primary endpoints were extraction time and success rate with each device. Participant preferences were also assessed. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate in relation to time to extraction was significantly higher with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the GlideScope(®) (p<0.001) regardless of the extraction device. Significantly fewer attempts were required for the first successful extraction with the Macintosh laryngoscope versus GlideScope(®) with Magill forceps (p=<0.001) and Sponge forceps (p=<0.001). The time for successful foreign body extraction using GlideScope(®) was significantly lower when using Magill (median 46 s, IQR 28-75 s) forceps than Sponge forceps (median 79 s, IQR 41-88 s). CONCLUSIONS: In this cadaver model, the Macintosh laryngoscope appeared to be more efficient and preferred than GlideScope(®) for extracting hypopharyngeal airway foreign bodies that are associated with fatal asphyxiation.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.relation.isPartOfRESUSCITATION-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHCadaver-
dc.subject.MESHCross-Over Studies-
dc.subject.MESHEquipment Design-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHForeign Bodies/therapy*-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHHypopharynx*-
dc.subject.MESHLaryngoscopes*-
dc.subject.MESHLaryngoscopy/education*-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHRandom Allocation-
dc.titleComparison of GlideScope(®) versus Macintosh laryngoscope for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body: a randomized cross-over cadaver study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Emergency Medicine (응급의학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang Mo Je-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMin Joung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSung Phil Chung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHyun Soo Chung-
dc.identifier.doi22429970-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA00470-
dc.contributor.localIdA03625-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02620-
dc.identifier.eissn1873-1570-
dc.identifier.pmid22429970-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957212001396-
dc.subject.keywordChoking-
dc.subject.keywordAsphyxia-
dc.subject.keywordForeign body airway obstruction-
dc.subject.keywordGlideScope-
dc.subject.keywordMagill forceps-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Min Joung-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChung, Sung Pil-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChung, Hyun Soo-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Min Joung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChung, Sung Pil-
dc.citation.volume83-
dc.citation.number10-
dc.citation.startPage1277-
dc.citation.endPage1280-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationRESUSCITATION, Vol.83(10) : 1277-1280, 2012-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Emergency Medicine (응급의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.