الفهرس 
Introduction & Aim of workOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 147 |  |  |
| | | from | 147 | | |
Abstract
This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 100 pediatric patients of both sex underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia and intubation was done by MultiViewScope or direct laryngeoscope , in the period from March 2018 to february2019 at Minia University hospital .
This study aimed to evaluate a new technique for intubation of pediatric patients by MultiViewScope comparing it with traditional technique for intubation by direct laryngeoscope .
Patients included in the study were randomly allocated into two equal groups (50 patients in each group ):
MultiViewScope (MVS ) group(A): were intubated by MultiViewScope .
Direct laryngeoscope (DL) group(B) : were intubated by traditional laryngeoscope .
All patients were followed up by using these parameters:
1.Heamodynamic parameters:
We assessed (HR, SBP,DBP ) before,immediately after induction just before intubation ,just after intubation was successfully done and then at 1,2,3,4 and 5 minutes after intubation .
Our study revealed significant increase in HR , SBP and DBP inside the same group after laryngeoscoy and intubation due to sympathetic stimulation and this increase start to reduce gradually till 5 minutes after intubation where there was no signifjcant difference from the base line .
There was no significant difference between two groups at any time during study period.
2. Oxygen saturation :
It was recorded at the times as heamodynamic parameter and we considered desaturation as SaO2 below 92% that was observed in 3 patients in MVS group while no patient showed desaturation in DL group.
There was no statistically significant difference between two studied groups as regard SaO2 changes during the study period .
3.Times until intubation in both groups:
The results revealed statistically significant longer duration in the time for positioning of the device ,time to best view and time to intubate with MVS comparable to DL.
4.Intubating conditioning in both groups :
Our study revealed that the insertion of DL into the oropharynx and correct positioning for intubation by it was easier than that with MVS .
As regard visibility or the quality of the view which was good in more cases which intubated by DL than MVS and this was because the visibility reduced by fogging in MVS group than that with DL group .
On the other hand , The glottic view was statistically significant better with MVS than DL as most of cases was viewed as grade I .
In both groups , advancement of ETT was easy in most of cases without any manipulation.
5.Success rate :
Our study recorded higher success rate from the first attempt with DL group than that with MVS group and that happened due to inability to visualize the vocal cords ,oesphygeal intubation or desaturation which happened in some cases intubated by MVS .
6.Complications:
Our study revealed no statistically significant or comparable difference between both groups as regard the complications either during procedure or post operative .
Conclusion
-from this research , we can conclude that MVS (stylet scope) is not superior to DL in ordinary intubating condition ,it should be reserved if there is anticipated difficult intubation or intubation was failed by DL .
-Thus , MultiViewScope is one of most important devices which must be found in all settings especially if there is suspicion of difficult intubation even if it requires longer time than DL.
Recommendations
- We recommened to use DL in patient with Mallampati I and II .
- In Mallampati III and IV or failed intubation VL should be used with precautions that desaturation may happen due to longer time taken for intubation .
-We recommend good training and workshops using VLs on manikain for ordinary intubation and difficult intubation before trial in patients.