{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015283842794759825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002183406113537118, 'mean_word_length': 5.417366946778712, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Performance of multi view scope for tracheal intubation of pediatric patients (randomized controlled trial)

Introduction: Pediatric endotracheal intubation (ETI) offers unique challenges not seen in the adult patient. There are many important anatomical, physiological and pathological differences between them. The glottic opening in a child is small and lies further anterior making direct visualization and successful placement more difficult. Aim of the work: This randomized controlled equivalent trial was designed to evaluate and compare the performance of MVS VL as a new tool versus the traditional machintosh DL for intubation of pediatric patients. Patients and Methods: One hundred children from 3 to 12 years of both gender, ASA I and II scheduled to undergo elective surgical operation under general anesthesia were divided into two equal groups each group 50 patients according to sample size, group (A) intubation was done by MultiViewScope (MVS) and group (B) intubation was done by direct laryngeoscope .It was a prospective randomizied controlled equivelant study on pediatric patients. Results: Our results revealed that there was no statistically significant differences between both groups either in heamodynamic response, oxygen saturation or complications during procedure and post operative but the main statistically significance difference was in hemodynamic parametrs inside the same group and between two groups mainly in PT, TTBV, TTI, glottic view and success rate. Discussion: As regard times till intubation especially TTI which was our primary outcome, our study results revealed that there was highly statistically significant difference between two groups which was longer with MVS than direct laryngeoscope and this prolonged time to intubation appeared to have no real clinical significance and this prolongation due to lack of training in usage of such new devices as we usually use direct laryngeoscope more than indirect one in our routine. Therefore our learning curve raised with time in our study as we got used to deal with MVS. We Recommend: We recommend to use DL in patient with Mallampati I and II. We recommend good training and workshops using VLs on manikain for ordinary intubation and difficult intubation before trial in patients.