The Fast and Easy Way for Double-Lumen Tube Intubation: Individual Angle-Modification

Jeong Jin Min, Jong-Hwan Lee, Se Hee Kang, Eunhee Kim, Sangmin M Lee, Jong Ho Cho, Hong Kwan Kim, Jeong Jin Min, Jong-Hwan Lee, Se Hee Kang, Eunhee Kim, Sangmin M Lee, Jong Ho Cho, Hong Kwan Kim

Abstract

To find the faster and easier way than the existing intubating technique for double-lumen tube, we modified the angle of double-lumen tube according to an individual's upper airway anatomy and compared the time needed and the number of attempts for successful intubation between individually angle-modified and non-modified double-lumen tubes. Adult patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery were randomly allocated in either non-angle-modified (Group N, n = 54) or angle-modified (Group M, n = 54) groups. During mask ventilation in the sniffing position, angle-modification was performed in Group M as follows: the distal tip of the tube was placed at the level of the cricoid cartilage and the shaft was bent at the intersection of the oral and pharyngeal axes estimated from the patient's surface anatomy. The time needed and the number of attempts for successful intubation and Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grade were recorded. Overall median intubation time (sec) was significantly shorter in Group M than in Group N [10.2 vs. 15.1, P<0.001]. In addition, Group M showed the shorter median intubation time (sec) in C-L grades I-III [8.2 vs. 11.1 in C-L grade I, (P = 0.003), 10.3 vs. 15.3 in II, (P = 0.001), and 11.8 vs. 27.9 in III, (P<0.001), respectively]. Moreover, all intubation was successfully performed at the first attempt in patients with C-L grades I-III in Group M (P = 0.027). Our study showed an individual angle-modification would be useful for the fast and easy intubation of double-lumen tube in patients with C-L grades I-III.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02190032.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Consort diagram.
Fig 1. Consort diagram.
Group N, non-modified double-lumen tube group; Group M, individually angle-modified double-lumen tube group
Fig 2. Tube angle-modification in the angle-modified…
Fig 2. Tube angle-modification in the angle-modified double-lumen tube group.
OA, oral axis; PA, pharyngeal axis; (A) With the patient’s head in the sniffing position, the oral and pharyngeal axes were assessed on the lateral side of the face. (B) The distal tip of the tube was positioned at the upper margin of the cricoid cartilage. (C) The tube shaft was bent at the intersection of the imaginary oral and the pharyngeal axes in order to produce a fluent curve.
Fig 3. Comparison of the median intubation…
Fig 3. Comparison of the median intubation times between the groups.
Group N, non-modified double-lumen tube group; Group M, individually angle-modified double-lumen tube group). (A) Overall analysis of the patients. (B) Subgroup analysis according to the Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grade. (C) Subgroup analysis according to the Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grade with the BURP (backward, upward, and rightward pressure on the larynx) technique.

References

    1. Brodsky JB. Lung separation and the difficult airway. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103 Suppl 1: i66–75. 10.1093/bja/aep262
    1. Campos JH. Which device should be considered the best for lung isolation: double-lumen endotracheal tube versus bronchial blockers. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007;20: 27–31.
    1. Russell T, Slinger P, Roscoe A, McRae K, Van Rensburg A. A randomised controlled trial comparing the GlideScope((R)) and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen endobronchial intubation. Anaesthesia. 2013;68: 1253–1258. 10.1111/anae.12322
    1. Wasem S, Lazarus M, Hain J, Festl J, Kranke P, Roewer N, et al. Comparison of the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30: 180–186. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835fe574
    1. Lin W, Li H, Liu W, Cao L, Tan H, Zhong Z. A randomised trial comparing the CEL-100 videolaryngoscope(TM) with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade for insertion of double-lumen tubes. Anaesthesia. 2012;67: 771–776. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07137.x
    1. Levitan RM, Heitz JW, Sweeney M, Cooper RM. The complexities of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy and alternative intubation devices. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57: 240–247. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.035
    1. Stasiuk RB. Improving styletted oral tracheal intubation: rational use of the OTSU. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48: 911–918.
    1. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52: 191–198.
    1. Walker L, Brampton W, Halai M, Hoy C, Lee E, Scott I, et al. Randomized controlled trial of intubation with the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope by inexperienced anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103: 440–445. 10.1093/bja/aep191
    1. Arino JJ, Velasco JM, Gasco C, Lopez-Timoneda F. Straight blades improve visualization of the larynx while curved blades increase ease of intubation: a comparison of the Macintosh, Miller, McCoy, Belscope and Lee-Fiberview blades. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50: 501–506.
    1. Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, Desai SP, Waraksa B, Freiberger D, et al. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1985;32: 429–434.
    1. Adnet F, Borron SW, Dumas JL, Lapostolle F, Cupa M, Lapandry C. Study of the "sniffing position" by magnetic resonance imaging. Anesthesiology. 2001;94: 83–86.
    1. Takahata O, Kubota M, Mamiya K, Akama Y, Nozaka T, Matsumoto H, et al. The efficacy of the "BURP" maneuver during a difficult laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 1997;84: 419–421.
    1. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 1984;39: 1105–1111.
    1. Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Plaisance P, et al. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS): proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1997;87: 1290–1297.
    1. Cook TM. A new practical classification of laryngeal view. Anaesthesia. 2000;55: 274–279.
    1. Yang M, Kim JA, Ahn HJ, Choi JW, Kim DK, Cho EA. Double-lumen tube tracheal intubation using a rigid video-stylet: a randomized controlled comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111: 990–995. 10.1093/bja/aet281
    1. Greenland KB, Edwards MJ, Hutton NJ, Challis VJ, Irwin MG, Sleigh JW. Changes in airway configuration with different head and neck positions using magnetic resonance imaging of normal airways: a new concept with possible clinical applications. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105: 683–690. 10.1093/bja/aeq239
    1. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004;99: 607–613, table of contents.
    1. Levitan RM, Pisaturo JT, Kinkle WC, Butler K, Everett WW. Stylet bend angles and tracheal tube passage using a straight-to-cuff shape. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13: 1255–1258.
    1. Hsu HT, Chou SH, Chou CY, Tseng KY, Kuo YW, Chen MC, et al. A modified technique to improve the outcome of intubation with a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14: 72 10.1186/1471-2253-14-72
    1. Lee JH, Kim CH, Bahk JH, Park KS. The influence of endotracheal tube tip design on nasal trauma during nasotracheal intubation: magill-tip versus murphy-tip. Anesth Analg. 2005;101: 1226–1229, table of contents.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться