4.1 Article

The clinical observation of difficult laryngoscopy and difficult intubation in infants with cleft lip and palate

期刊

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 283-289

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01762.x

关键词

laryngoscopy; cleft lip and palate; infants; difficult laryngoscopy; difficult intubation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

background: The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of difficult laryngoscopy in infants with cleft lip and palate and to observe its relationships with age, sites, and degrees of deformities. Methods: A total of 985 infants aged 1 month to 3 years, undergoing repair of cleft lip and palate were included in this study. The infants suffering from unilateral cleft lip, simple cleft palate, and combined bilateral cleft lip and palate were 465, 421, and 79 respectively. They were divided into three groups according to age; 1-6 months group, 6-12 months group and 1-3 years group. Results: The total incidence of difficult laryngoscopy was 4.77%. The incidence of difficult laryngoscopy was closely related to age, sites and degrees of deformities, and micrognathia. The incidence of difficult laryngoscopy was 7.06% in 1-6 months group, 2.90% in 6-12 months group, and 3.13% in 1-3 years group, and was greatest for infants with combined bilateral cleft lip and palate, less for those with left cleft lip and least for those with right cleft lip and simple cleft palate. The incidences of difficult laryngoscopy in infants with and without micrognathia were 50% and 3.83% respectively. The incidences of moderately difficult, difficult, and failed intubations were 1.02%, 0.91%, and 0.102% respectively. Conclusions: Infants with cleft lip and palate, left cleft lip and alveolus, combined bilateral cleft lip and palate, micrognathia, and age < 6 months were the important risk factors for difficult laryngoscopy. Difficult intubation occurred mainly in infants with laryngoscopic views of grade III and IV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据