Objective

To compare between blind and smartphone-based endoscope-assisted techniques for endotracheal intubation in rabbits.

Study design

Prospective clinical study.

Animals

A total of 34 rabbits.

Methods

Rabbits were assigned to four groups: intubation by a veterinary anesthesiologist (VA) or an exotic pet medicine specialist (EPS) using blind or endoscope-assisted techniques. Propofol dose, number of attempts until successful intubation, total time for intubation, duration of the successful attempt and occurrence of lingual cyanosis/laryngeal lesions were recorded. Data were analyzed by t test, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U test or chi-square test. Pearson correlation for body weight was performed.

Results

The success rate of blind intubation was 88.9% and 77.8% for VA and EPS, respectively. Propofol dose, total and median number of attempts, total time for intubation and duration of the successful attempt were 3.1 (0–6.2) mg kg^–1, 19, 2 (1–5), 79 ± 65 and 30 ± 20 seconds for VA and 1.5 (0–4.5) mg kg^–1, 24, 3 (1–5), 136 ± 92 and 38 ± 16 seconds for EPS. The success rate of endoscope-assisted intubation was 87.5% for both operators. Propofol dose, total and median number of attempts, total time for intubation and duration of the successful attempt were 2.5 (1.3–7.4) mg kg^–1, 22, 3 (1–5), 170 (65–368) and 46 (22–150) seconds for VA and 3.2 (0–6) mg kg^–1, 11, 1 (1–4), 56 (27–432) and 55 (26–79) seconds for EPS. VA performed blind intubation more quickly, propofol dose was lower and cyanosis was less frequent than in the endoscope-assisted group.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

Both techniques were reliable for rabbit endotracheal intubation. Best results were achieved when the operator was experienced in the technique. The smartphone-based endoscope is a useful aid for rabbit intubation.

中文翻译：

---

兔盲插管和基于智能手机的内窥镜辅助插管的比较

目的

比较盲法和基于智能手机的内窥镜辅助技术对家兔进行气管插管的效果。

学习规划

前瞻性临床研究。

动物

共有34只兔子。

方法

将兔子分为四组：兽医用麻醉师（VA）或异国宠物医学专家（EPS）使用盲法或内窥镜辅助技术进行插管。记录异丙酚的剂量，成功插管前的尝试次数，插管的总时间，成功尝试的持续时间以及舌发/喉部病变的发生。通过t检验，Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U检验或卡方检验分析数据。进行皮尔逊体重相关分析。

结果

VA和EPS盲插管成功率分别为88.9％和77.8％。丙泊酚的剂量，尝试的总的和平均数目，总时间为成功尝试的插管和持续时间分别为3.1（0-6.2）毫克千克^-1，19，2（1-5），79±65和30±20秒VA和1.5（0-4.5）毫克千克^-1，24，3（1-5），136±92和38±16秒的EPS。两位操作者的内窥镜辅助插管成功率均为87.5％。丙泊酚的剂量，尝试的总的和平均数目，总时间为成功尝试的插管和持续时间分别为2.5（1.3-7.4）毫克千克^-1，22，3（1-5），170（65-368）和46（ VA为22–150）秒，而3.2（0–6）mg kg ^–1，EPS分别为11、1、1（1-4），56（27-432）和55（26-79）秒。与内窥镜辅助组相比，VA进行盲点插管的速度更快，丙泊酚的剂量更低，发的频率更低。

结论与临床意义

两种技术均适用于兔气管插管。当操作员具有丰富的技术经验时，可获得最佳结果。基于智能手机的内窥镜可为兔插管提供有用的帮助。