Perbandingan Intubasi Endotrakea Menggunakan Clip-on Smartphone Camera Videolaryngoscope dengan Laringoskop Macintosh pada Manekin

Fariz Wajdi Latuconsina; Dedi Fitri Yadi; Suwarman Suwarman

doi:10.15851/jap.v6n1.1287

Perbandingan Intubasi Endotrakea Menggunakan Clip-on Smartphone Camera Videolaryngoscope dengan Laringoskop Macintosh pada Manekin

Fariz Wajdi Latuconsina, Dedi Fitri Yadi, Suwarman Suwarman

Abstract

Intubasi endotrakea merupakan gold standard dalam manajemen jalan napas. Teknik laringoskopi direk merupakan teknik yang sulit sehingga berpotensi menyebabkan kegagalan khususnya pada orang yang tidak berpengalaman. Tujuan penelitian ini menilai keberhasilan, lama waktu, dan kemudahan intubasi endotrakea pada manekin menggunakan clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope dibanding dengan laringoskop Macintosh. Penelitian dilakukan menggunakan metode crossover randomized study melibatkan 23 orang mahasiswa kedokteran di RSUP Dr. Hasan Sadikin Bandung pada Oktober 2017. Dari penelitian ini didapatkan keberhasilan intubasi endotrakea menggunakan clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope lebih tinggi (96%) dibandingkan dengan menggunakan laringoskop Macintosh (65%). Lama waktu intubasi endotrakea rata-rata juga terbukti lebih singkat menggunakan clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope (32 detik) dibanding dengan laringoskop Macintosh (52 detik). Intubasi endotrakea menggunakan clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope lebih mudah (4) dibanding dengan menggunakan laringoskop Macintosh (6). Ketiga variabel menunjukkan perbedaan yang signifikan dengan nilai p<0,05. Simpulan, penggunaan clip-on smartphone camera video laryngoscope untuk intubasi endotrakea memiliki keberhasilan yang lebih tinggi, lama waktu intubasi endotrakea yang lebih singkat, dan intubasi endotrakea yang lebih mudah dibanding dengan menggunakan laringoskop Macintosh.

Kata kunci: Clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope, intubasi endotrakea, laringoskopi direk, video-laryngoscope

Keywords

Clip-on smartphone camera videolaryngoscope, intubasi endotrakea, laringoskopi direk, video- laryngoscope

Full Text:

PDF

References

Hodgetts V, Danha RF, Mendonca C, Hillerman C. A randomized comparison of C-MAC videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation. J Anesthesia Clinic Res. 2011;2(9):1–3.

Shin M, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Oh E, Kim HJ. Comparing McGrath MAC, C-MAC, and Macintosh laryngoscopes operated by medical students: a randomized, crossover, manikin study. Bio Med Res Int. 2016;2016:1–8.

Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K, Reeve CS, dkk. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1207–10.

Liu Z-J, Yi J, Guo W-J, Ma C, Huang Y-G. Comparison of MacGrath series 3 and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubtion in patients with normal airway by inexperienced anesthetists. Medicine. 2016;95(2):1–6.

Kaki AM, AlMarakbi WA, Fawzi HM, Boker AM. Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and glidescope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical student’s hands: a manikin study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5(4):376–81.

Wallace CD, Foulds LT, McLeod GA, Younger RA, McGuire BE. A comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation using a McGrath MAC laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1281–5.

Karippacheril JG, Umesh G, Ramkumar V. Inexpensive video-laryngoscopy guided intubation using a personal computer: Initial experience of a novel technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28:261–4.

Hagberg CA, Artime CA. Airway management in the adult. Dalam: Miller RD, Cohen NH, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Young WL, penyunting. Miller’s anesthesia. Edisi ke-8. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2015. hlm. 1647–83.

Kelly FE, Cook TM. Seeing is believing: getting the best out of videolaryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(S1):i9–13.

Biermann H, Heiden EVD, Beishuizen A, Girbes ARJ, Waard MCd. Endotracheal intubation by inexperienced registrars in internal medicine: a comparison of video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy. Neth J Crit Care. 2013;17(5):7–9.

Lee C-J, Cho S-H, Kim J-S. Endotracheal intubation using smartphone endoscope camera. Asian Pac J Health Sci. 2016;3(2):19–21.

Levitan RM, Heitz JW, Sweeney M, Cooper RM. The complexities of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy and alternative intubation devices. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(3):240–7.

Chemsian RV, Bhananker S, Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014;4(1):35–42.

Liew LQ, Teo WW, Tan BH, Leong SM, Tan AY. Ease of intubation with the McGRATH® MAC, C-MAC® or Macintosh laryngoscopes by novice operators in simulated difficult airways-a manikin study. BJMMR. 2016;16(8):1–6.

Collins SR. Direct and indirect laryngoscopy: equipment and techniques. Respir Care. 2014;59(6):850–64.

Pieters BMA, Wilbers NER, Huijzer M, Winkens B, Zundert AAJV. Comparison of seven videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope in manikins by experienced and novice personnel. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:556–64.

Lye ST, Liaw CM, Seet E, Koh KF. Comparison of results from novice and trained personnel using the Macintosh Laryngoscope, Pentax AWS®, C-MACTM, and Bonfils Intubation Fibrescope: a manikin study. Singapore Med J. 2013;54(2):64–8.

Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:1050–61.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15851/jap.v6n1.1287