Síguenos en Twitter     Síguenos en Facebook     Síguenos en Google+     Síguenos en YouTube     Siguenos en Linkedin     Correo Grupsagessa     Gmail     Yahoo Mail     Dropbox     Instagram     Pinterest     Slack     Google Drive     Reddit     StumbleUpon     Print


Mi foto
FACP. Colegio de médicos de Tarragona Nº 4305520 / fgcapriles@gmail.com


Buscar en contenido


miércoles, 30 de diciembre de 2015


PHARM - by ketaminh on December 28, 2015
One systematic review compared Macintosh laryngoscopy with other intubation techniques for patients with cervical spine immobilization. The risk of intubation failure was lower with the other intubation techniques (Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-Mac, Glidescope, McGrath) than with Macintosh. Other than Airtraq, there were no significant differences in intubation failure or time to intubation when compared to traditional laryngoscopy. In a second systematic review, video and traditional laryngoscopy were compared for use in emergency conditions. Video laryngoscope did not result in high rates of successful intubation. In addition, glottic view and time to intubation were not significantly different between devices. Two randomized controlled trials and 15 non-randomized studies were identified. The results of these studies are summarized in Table 1. Most of the included studies found intubation with video laryngoscopy to be either similar or superior to direct laryngoscopy. No relevant economic evaluations were identified."