خط مشی دسترسیدرباره ما
ثبت نامثبت نام
راهنماراهنما
فارسی
ورودورود
صفحه اصلیصفحه اصلی
جستجوی مدارک
تمام متن
منابع دیجیتالی
رکورد قبلیرکورد بعدی
نوع مدرک : TF
زبان مدرک : فارسی
شماره رکورد : 66954
شماره مدرک : ‭پ۵۳۴۴۹‬
شماره راهنما : ‭ت۲۷۴۰‬
سر شناسه : سرشار، سعید
عنوان اصلي : مقایسه میزان موفقیت ویدئو گلیدسکوپ با لارنگوسکوپی مستقیم جهت تعبیه لوله تراشه
نام عام مواد : [پایان‌نامه]
نام نخستين پديدآور : /سعید سرشار
نام ساير پديدآوران : ؛استاد راهنما: کوروش احمدی
عنوان ديگر : عنوان به انگلیسی‭comparison in success rate between video glidescope with direct laryngoscopy for orotracheal intubation :‬
وضعيت نشر : دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، ‭۱۳۹۱‬، دانشکده پزشکی
صفحه شمار : ‮‭[۶۲]‬ ص.‬: جدول، نمودار
يادداشت : چکیده فارسی، چکیده انگلیسی
يادداشت : چاپی
خلاصه يا چکيده : (‭Introduction: Video laryngoscopy has, in recent years, become more available to emergency physicians. However, little research has been conducted to compare their success to conventional direct laryngoscopy. This study was conducted to compare the success rates and time for intubation of GlideScope‬ض‍‭attempt success rates and time for intubation.Results: In each group, there was neither a clinically relevant difference in the anthropometric data or in the medication used for anesthesia between patients intubated by GlideSope (-) videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for emergency department intubations.Methods: ninety seven patients requiring endotracheal intubation in emergency department were enrolled. All patients with apnea or cardiopulmonary arrest were excluded. Considering the LEMON criteria patients categorized to easy or difficult airway and endotracheal intubation were performed by videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in each group. Primary analysis evaluated overall and first‬ض‍‭attempt success compared to direct laryngoscopy (60.9 ) in patients with difficult airway.(p=0.036) However, there was no significant difference in overall success with Glidescope or direct laryngoscope in each group. Tracheal intubation needed significantly more time with direct laryngoscopy (32.7-) or direct laryngoscopy. GlideScope (87.5 ) had higher first‬▒‭14.58 s) than with Glidescope (22.5‬▒‭7.88 s). (p<0.001).Conclusion: Video laryngoscope and GlideScope in particular may be useful instruments in the management of the predicted difficult airway in emergency department.‬
 
 
 
(در صورت عدم وضوح تصویر اینجا را کلیک نمایید)