Loading…

Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients

Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Revista brasileira de anestesiologia 2016-08, Vol.66 (4), p.363-368
Main Authors: Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan, Yahya, Nurlia, Ghazali, Siti Salmah, Kamaruzaman, Esa, Yong, Liu Chian, Dan, Adnan, Md Zain, Jaafar
Format: Article
Language:eng ; por
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 368
container_issue 4
container_start_page 363
container_title Revista brasileira de anestesiologia
container_volume 66
creator Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan
Yahya, Nurlia
Ghazali, Siti Salmah
Kamaruzaman, Esa
Yong, Liu Chian
Dan, Adnan
Md Zain, Jaafar
description Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. Results: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScopeTM Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p = 0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2 ± 9.3 s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9 ± 13.0 s (p = 0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p = 0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. Conclusion: This study showed that using the GlideScopeTM to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>scielo_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_scielo_journals_S0034_70942016000400363</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S0034_70942016000400363</scielo_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4d612e0d354a474db47c59679b7276f7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>S0034_70942016000400363</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d1053-2ce84f19b7479d42ad4793d9a70c2622317dd53ed3bc076a831d5d12601243513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkU1u2zAQhbVogaZpT9ANL2B1-CPSWhZGmxpI0EVSoDthRI5tCjIpaOgAybV6wTJJVw_zMPjew0zTfJHQSpD269SOEyZqFUjTStmC1O-aK7kFu-nB_fnQfGSeAJTtJFw1f3f5vOAa01HExLSWmJPwJ1zRF1ojl-hZVCsh5yNyWaMX5TKSWGb0dKZUxPgkLvwCuJljoHufF3q4E4-RLzjHZ3wlPnIr7tDvU8l8EjOuT-mY-WVVIHONweSpNhCYkLicqMRnCnUK1ax5WOq0VFYN5E_N-wPOTJ__63Xz-8f3h93Pze2vm_3u2-0mSOj0RnnamoPsR2dcH4zCUFWHHh14ZZXS0oXQaQp69OAsbrUMXZDKglRGd1JfN_s3bsg4Dcsaz7X3kDEOr0ZejwPWg_mZBhOsVARBdwaNM2E0zne9dTVcOXtwldW-sdhHmvMw5cuaavnhHkCbwUFv6sMsAJhqWK3_AShckLo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients</title><source>BACON - Elsevier - GLOBAL_SCIENCEDIRECT-OPENACCESS</source><source>SciELO</source><creator>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan ; Yahya, Nurlia ; Ghazali, Siti Salmah ; Kamaruzaman, Esa ; Yong, Liu Chian ; Dan, Adnan ; Md Zain, Jaafar</creator><creatorcontrib>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan ; Yahya, Nurlia ; Ghazali, Siti Salmah ; Kamaruzaman, Esa ; Yong, Liu Chian ; Dan, Adnan ; Md Zain, Jaafar</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. Results: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScopeTM Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p = 0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2 ± 9.3 s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9 ± 13.0 s (p = 0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p = 0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. Conclusion: This study showed that using the GlideScopeTM to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1806-907X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013</identifier><language>eng ; por</language><publisher>Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia</publisher><subject>ANESTHESIOLOGY ; Complicações ; Laringoscopia direta ; Sonda nasogástrica ; Videolaringoscópio</subject><ispartof>Revista brasileira de anestesiologia, 2016-08, Vol.66 (4), p.363-368</ispartof><rights>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,24131,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yahya, Nurlia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghazali, Siti Salmah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamaruzaman, Esa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yong, Liu Chian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dan, Adnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Md Zain, Jaafar</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients</title><title>Revista brasileira de anestesiologia</title><addtitle>Rev. Bras. Anestesiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. Results: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScopeTM Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p = 0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2 ± 9.3 s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9 ± 13.0 s (p = 0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p = 0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. Conclusion: This study showed that using the GlideScopeTM to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.</description><subject>ANESTHESIOLOGY</subject><subject>Complicações</subject><subject>Laringoscopia direta</subject><subject>Sonda nasogástrica</subject><subject>Videolaringoscópio</subject><issn>1806-907X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNotkU1u2zAQhbVogaZpT9ANL2B1-CPSWhZGmxpI0EVSoDthRI5tCjIpaOgAybV6wTJJVw_zMPjew0zTfJHQSpD269SOEyZqFUjTStmC1O-aK7kFu-nB_fnQfGSeAJTtJFw1f3f5vOAa01HExLSWmJPwJ1zRF1ojl-hZVCsh5yNyWaMX5TKSWGb0dKZUxPgkLvwCuJljoHufF3q4E4-RLzjHZ3wlPnIr7tDvU8l8EjOuT-mY-WVVIHONweSpNhCYkLicqMRnCnUK1ax5WOq0VFYN5E_N-wPOTJ__63Xz-8f3h93Pze2vm_3u2-0mSOj0RnnamoPsR2dcH4zCUFWHHh14ZZXS0oXQaQp69OAsbrUMXZDKglRGd1JfN_s3bsg4Dcsaz7X3kDEOr0ZejwPWg_mZBhOsVARBdwaNM2E0zne9dTVcOXtwldW-sdhHmvMw5cuaavnhHkCbwUFv6sMsAJhqWK3_AShckLo</recordid><startdate>20160801</startdate><enddate>20160801</enddate><creator>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan</creator><creator>Yahya, Nurlia</creator><creator>Ghazali, Siti Salmah</creator><creator>Kamaruzaman, Esa</creator><creator>Yong, Liu Chian</creator><creator>Dan, Adnan</creator><creator>Md Zain, Jaafar</creator><general>Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia</general><scope>GPN</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160801</creationdate><title>Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients</title><author>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan ; Yahya, Nurlia ; Ghazali, Siti Salmah ; Kamaruzaman, Esa ; Yong, Liu Chian ; Dan, Adnan ; Md Zain, Jaafar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d1053-2ce84f19b7479d42ad4793d9a70c2622317dd53ed3bc076a831d5d12601243513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; por</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>ANESTHESIOLOGY</topic><topic>Complicações</topic><topic>Laringoscopia direta</topic><topic>Sonda nasogástrica</topic><topic>Videolaringoscópio</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yahya, Nurlia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghazali, Siti Salmah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamaruzaman, Esa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yong, Liu Chian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dan, Adnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Md Zain, Jaafar</creatorcontrib><collection>SciELO</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Revista brasileira de anestesiologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ibadullah, Wan Hafsah Wan</au><au>Yahya, Nurlia</au><au>Ghazali, Siti Salmah</au><au>Kamaruzaman, Esa</au><au>Yong, Liu Chian</au><au>Dan, Adnan</au><au>Md Zain, Jaafar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients</atitle><jtitle>Revista brasileira de anestesiologia</jtitle><addtitle>Rev. Bras. Anestesiol</addtitle><date>2016-08-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>363</spage><epage>368</epage><pages>363-368</pages><issn>1806-907X</issn><abstract>Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. Results: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScopeTM Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p = 0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2 ± 9.3 s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9 ± 13.0 s (p = 0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p = 0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. Conclusion: This study showed that using the GlideScopeTM to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.</abstract><pub>Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia</pub><doi>10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1806-907X
ispartof Revista brasileira de anestesiologia, 2016-08, Vol.66 (4), p.363-368
issn 1806-907X
language eng ; por
recordid cdi_scielo_journals_S0034_70942016000400363
source BACON - Elsevier - GLOBAL_SCIENCEDIRECT-OPENACCESS; SciELO
subjects ANESTHESIOLOGY
Complicações
Laringoscopia direta
Sonda nasogástrica
Videolaringoscópio
title Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T12%3A58%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-scielo_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20insertion%20characteristics%20on%20nasogastric%20tube%20placement%20by%20using%20GlideScopeTM%20visualization%20vs.%20MacIntosh%20laryngoscope%20assistance%20in%20anaesthetized%20and%20intubated%20patients&rft.jtitle=Revista%20brasileira%20de%20anestesiologia&rft.au=Ibadullah,%20Wan%20Hafsah%20Wan&rft.date=2016-08-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=363&rft.epage=368&rft.pages=363-368&rft.issn=1806-907X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013&rft_dat=%3Cscielo_doaj_%3ES0034_70942016000400363%3C/scielo_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d1053-2ce84f19b7479d42ad4793d9a70c2622317dd53ed3bc076a831d5d12601243513%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_scielo_id=S0034_70942016000400363&rfr_iscdi=true