Randomized comparison of the effectiveness of nasal intubation using a GlideScope video laryngoscope with Magill forceps versus vascular forceps in patients with a normal airway

Jong H Yeom, Mi K Oh, Woo J Shin, Dae W Ahn, Woo J Jeon, Sang Y Cho, Jong H Yeom, Mi K Oh, Woo J Shin, Dae W Ahn, Woo J Jeon, Sang Y Cho

Abstract

Purpose: The GlideScope® video laryngoscope (GVL) is widely used for nasotracheal intubation in dental and facial plastic surgery. The angle of the Magill forceps is different from that of the GVL blade, which suggests that the Magill forceps are not the ideal forceps for use with the GVL. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Magill forceps vs vascular forceps for nasotracheal intubation using the GVL.

Methods: This study included 60 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation. Patients were assigned to one of two groups-i.e., Magill forceps (group M) or vascular forceps along with a tube exchanger (group V), by computer randomization. The primary outcome was total intubation time, defined as the time from when the anesthesiologist picked up the device to the time when three successive end-tidal CO2 waves were obtained following intubation. Secondary outcomes were blood in the endotracheal tube and trauma to the oral tissues or teeth. A blind observer assessed the presence of sore throat one hour and 24 hr after surgery.

Results: The total intubation time was significantly different between group M and group V (96.1 sec and 78.1 sec, respectively; mean difference, 18 sec; 95% confidence interval (CI), 13.7 to 49.7). The incidence of epistaxis in group M was significantly greater than that in group V (46.7% vs 16.7%, respectively; relative risk, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.8).

Conclusion: The total intubation time was significantly less with the vascular forceps (and tube exchanger) than with the Magill forceps. Using vascular forceps also reduced the incidence of epistaxis compared with that using the Magill forceps. Using a tube exchanger and vascular forceps offers advantages over use of Magill forceps when a GlideScope video laryngoscope is used for nasotracheal intubation.

Trial registration: http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/cris2/en/ , CRIS, KCT0001310. Registered 29 July 2014.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Demonstration of different angles of a GlideScope blade (#4), b Vascular forceps, and c Magill forceps
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Demonstration of tube exchanger positioning during the study (with approximately 15 cm of the exchanger protruding from the distal end of the nasotracheal tube)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Study flow diagram

References

    1. Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, et al. A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:144–148. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9.
    1. Jeon WJ, Shim JH, Cho SY, Baek SJ. Stylet- or forceps-guided tube exchanger to facilitate GlideScope intubation in simulated difficult intubations–a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:585–590. doi: 10.1111/anae.12219.
    1. Salibian H, Jain S, Gabriel D, Azocar RJ. Conversion of an oral to nasal orotracheal intubation using an endotracheal tube exchanger. Anesth Analg. 2003;95:1822. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200212000-00077.
    1. Nakata Y, Niimi Y. Oral-to-nasal endotracheal tube exchange in patients with bleeding esophageal varices. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:1380–1381. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199512000-00044.
    1. Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video-laryngoscopes in adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:1050–1061. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02285.x.
    1. Liu EH, Goy RW, Tan BH, Asai T. Tracheal intubation with videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a randomized trial of the AirwayScope and the GlideScope. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:446–451. doi: 10.1093/bja/aep164.
    1. Lai HY, Chen IH, Chen A, Hwang FY, Lee Y. The use of the GlideScope for tracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Anaesth. 2006;97:419–422. doi: 10.1093/bja/ael133.
    1. Dupanovic M, Isaacson SA, Borovcanin Z, et al. Clinical comparison of two stylet angles for orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope video laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22:352–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.10.008.
    1. Moore MS, Wong AB. GlideScope intubation assisted by fiberoptic scope. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:885. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000264789.07231.fb.
    1. Xue FS, Li CW, Zhang GH, et al. GlideScope-assisted awake intubation: initial experience in 13 patients. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:1014–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04809.x.
    1. Shim JH, Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Choe GH. Comparison of the GlideScope and the McGrath method using vascular forceps and a tube exchanger in case of simulated difficult airway intubation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69:133–137. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2016.69.2.133.
    1. Hirabayashi Y. GlideScope videolaryngoscope facilitates nasotracheal intubation. Can J Anesth. 2006;53:1163–1164. doi: 10.1007/BF03022888.
    1. Xue F, Zhang G, Liu J, et al. A clinical assessment of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope in nasotracheal intubation with general anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 2006;18:611–615. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.03.018.
    1. Kim YC, Lee SH, Noh GJ, et al. Thermosoftening treatment of the nasotracheal tube before intubation can reduce epistaxis and nasal damage. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:698–701. doi: 10.1213/00000539-200009000-00038.
    1. Lim CW, Min SW, Kim CS, Chung JE, Park JE, Hwang JY. The use of a nasogastric tube to facilitate nasotracheal intubation: a randomised trial. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:591–597. doi: 10.1111/anae.12627.
    1. Seo KS, Kim JH, Yang SM, Kim HJ, Bahk JH, Yum KW. A new technique to reduce epistaxis and enhance navigability during nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:1420–1424. doi: 10.1213/.
    1. Enk D, Palmes AM, Van Aken H, Westphal M. Nasotracheal intubation: a simple and effective technique to reduce nasopharyngeal trauma and tube contamination. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1432–1436. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200211000-00061.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi