Fiberscope Assisted Videolaryngoscope Intubation in the Surgical Treatment of TMJ Ankylosis

Temporomandibular ankylosis is characterized by the formation of a bony mass which replaces normal temporomandibular joint (TMJ) articulation. Anaesthetic management in these patients requires expertise and dependable intubation technique that allows successful intubation due to anticipated difficulty in accessing the airway. A novel technique of endotracheal intubation is used for the successful airway management during the surgical treatment in patients with TMJ ankylosis with the assistance of fiberscope and GlideScope^® videolaryngoscope. GlideScope^® videolaryngoscope is a recently introduced system for tracheal intubation that has a dedicated video camera encased into a laryngoscope blade and provides better panoramic view than the conventional laryngoscopes. This technique avoids complications such as trauma to soft tissue structures surrounding the glottis during the passage of the tube over the fiberscope. It gives a clear view of the tube and its cuff position during intubation. It also abbreviates the time required for intubation which is a crucial determinant in this subset of patients owing to the difficult airway associated with paediatric age group.     

A Global Vision of Prehospital Care

Abstract

Background. Out-of-hospital tracheal intubation is controversial because of questions regarding its safety as well as its impact on patient care. Factors contributing to the controversy include failed intubations, number of attempts required, prolonged periods without ventilation, and misplaced tracheal tubes. However, the most important factors are the decision-making and clinical skills of the intubator. Unfortunately, the limited number of outcome studies adds to the controversy. New technology, the video laryngoscope, has been introduced to facilitate tracheal intubation. At least one model of video laryngoscope (GlideScope Ranger) has been designed for out-of-hospital use. In an effort to assess the effect this technology might have on out-of-hospital intubation, a study comparing traditional laryngoscopy (TL) versus video laryngoscopy (VL) was performed. The study endpoint was the number of attempts to achieve intubation. Data were also collected on time to intubate, nonventilated periods, unrecognized misplaced tubes, and complications of the procedure. Methods. Data were collected on 300 consecutive patients, 6 years of age or older, weighing at least 20 kg, who were intubated using TL. They were compared with data on 315 patients who were intubated using VL. All intubations were confirmed by visualization where possible, auscultation, misting, and capnography. In addition, all were continuously monitored by capnography. Results. The average time to intubate in the VL group was 21 seconds (range 8–43 seconds) versus 42 seconds (range 28–90 seconds) in the TL group. The average number of attempts was 1.2 (range 1–3) in the VL group versus 2.3 (range 1–4) in the TL group. Successful intubation was 97%% in the VL group versus 95%% in the TL group. There were no unrecognized misplaced tubes in either group. For failed intubations, an alternative airway was successful in 99%% of the VL group and 99%% of the TL group. Maximum nonventilated time during any one intubation attempt was 37 seconds in the VL group and 55 seconds in the TL group. Conclusions. The numbers of attempts were significantly reduced in the VL group. This suggests that the use of VL has a positive effect on the number of attempts to achieve tracheal intubation.     

Use of the GlideScope does not lower the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation more than the Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:It is presently unclear whether the hemodynamic response to intubation is less marked with indirect laryngoscopy using the GlideScope (GlideScope) than with direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether using the GlideScope lowers the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation more than using the Macintosh laryngoscope.Methods:We performed a comprehensive literature search of electronic databases for clinical trials comparing hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. The primary aim was to determine whether the heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP) 60 s after tracheal intubation with the GlideScope were lower than after intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope. We expressed pooled differences in HR and MBP between the devices as the weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and also performed trial sequential analysis (TSA). Second, we examined whether use of the GlideScope resulted in lower post-intubation hemodynamic responses at 120, 180, and 300 s compared with use of the Macintosh laryngoscope. For sensitivity analysis, we used a multivariate random effects model that accounted for within-study correlation of the longitudinal data.Results:The literature search identified 13 articles. HR and MBP at 60 seconds post-intubation was not significantly lower with the GlideScope than with the Macintosh (HR vs MBP: weighted mean difference = 0.22 vs 2.56; 95% confidence interval −3.43 to 3.88 vs −0.82 to 5.93; P = .90 vs 0.14; I² = 77% vs 63%: Cochran Q, 52.7 vs 27.2). Use of the GlideScope was not associated with a significantly lower HR or MBP at 120, 180, or 300 s post-intubation. TSA indicated that the total sample size was over the futility boundary for HR and MBP. Sensitivity analysis indicated no significant association between use of the GlideScope and a lower HR or MBP at any measurement point.Conclusions:Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope did not lower the hemodynamic response after tracheal intubation. Sensitivity analysis results supported this finding, and the results of TSA suggest that the total sample size exceeded the TSA monitoring boundary for HR and MBP.     

视频喉镜引导困难气管插管的护理配合

对69例气管插管困难患者在视频喉镜引导下气管插管成功,无一例因护理配合不当出现并发症。提出术前做好用物准备,对患者气管插管困难进行预测及判断患者有无寰椎关节运动受限或张口异常,针对性做好应对措施;术中熟练操作步骤,密切配合,加强生命体征观察,可提高气管插管成功率、减少损伤、增加安全性。     

可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜在声门显露困难患者双腔支气管插管中的应用

目的探讨GlideScope可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导在声门显露困难患者双腔支气管插管中的应用。方法选择择期行胸科手术患者40例,男24例,女16例,年龄24~78岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,MallampatiⅢ或Ⅳ级,随机分为GlideScope可视喉镜组(GF组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组),每组20例。GF组运用可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导进行支气管插管及对位;M组运用传统方法(先用Macintosh喉镜插管,再使用纤维支气管镜对位)。记录患者喉镜下声门显露程度Cormack-Lehane分级、插管时间、插管一次成功率、需喉部按压的患者例数以及术后48h内的声音嘶哑及咽痛情况。结果GF组Cormack-Lehane分级明显低于M组(P0.01)。GF组插管时间明显短于M组[(104.3±11.1)s vs.(138.6±33.0)s](P0.01),一次插管成功率明显高于M组(90%vs.55%)(P0.05),需要喉部按压患者比例明显低于M组(20%vs.90%)(P0.01),术后声音嘶哑和咽痛的发生率明显低于M组(5%vs.35%,25%vs.75%)(P0.05)。结论与传统方法比较,可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导用于声门显露困难患者可以提高插管的成功率,减少插管时的应激反应,降低声嘶和咽痛的发生率。     

McGrath可视喉镜与Macintosh直接喉镜显露颈椎手术患者喉部结构的比较

目的 比较McGrath可视喉镜与Macintosh直接喉镜显露颈椎手术患者喉部结构的效果. 方法 50例颈椎手术患者采用随机数字表法随机分为McGrath组和Macintosh组,每组25例.麻醉诱导后,McGrath组先用Macintosh直接喉镜显露喉部结构并记录Cormack-Lehane分级(C/L分级),不插管,再改用McGrath可视喉镜显露喉部结构并插入气管导管.Macintosh组先用McGrath可视喉镜显露声门,再使用Macintosh直接喉镜显露喉部结构并插管.记录患者一般情况、气道评估指标(甲颏间距、张口度、Mallampati分级、颈部活动度)、喉镜显露C/L分级和插管并发症. 结果 两组间患者一般情况和气道评估指标差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).McGrath可视喉镜的C/L分级(Ⅰ级∶Ⅱ级∶Ⅲ级为34∶14∶2)显著优于Macintosh直接喉镜(Ⅰ级∶Ⅱ级∶Ⅲ级为13∶32∶5,P＜0.01). 结论 McGrath可视喉镜对喉部结构的显露优于Macintosh直接喉镜,提示该可视喉镜有助于颈椎手术患者的气管插管处理.     

GlideScope可视喉镜在气管插管教学中的应用

目的本实验旨在评价GlideScope可视喉镜在气管插管教学中的带教效果。方法选取麻醉系本科实习医师20名,随机分为对照组（A组）、实验组（B组）,每组10人。对照组和实验组分别采用普通喉镜和GlideScope可视喉镜带教气管插管,随后对两组实习医师进行考核。结果对照组插管成功34例,失败26例,成功率56.7%,实验组成功47例,失败13例,成功率78.3%。实验组成功率明显高于对照组。结论 GlideScope可视喉镜在气管插管带教中优势明显,值得在临床教学中推广。     

Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Experienced anaesthetists can be confronted with difficult or failed tracheal intubations. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to ascertain if the literature indicated if videolaryngoscopy conferred an advantage when used by experienced anaesthetists managing patients with a known difficult airway. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials up to 1 January 2017. Outcome parameters extracted from studies were: first‐attempt success of tracheal intubation; time to successful intubation; number of intubation attempts; Cormack and Lehane grade; use of airway adjuncts (e.g. stylet, gum elastic bougie); and complications (e.g. mucosal and dental trauma). Nine studies, including 1329 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. First‐attempt success was greater for all videolaryngoscopes (OR 0.34 (95%CI 0.18–0.66); p = 0.001). Use of videolaryngoscopy was associated with a significantly better view of the glottis (Cormack and Lehane grades 1 and 2 vs. 3–4, OR 0.04 (95%CI 0.01–0.15); p < 0.00001). Mucosal trauma occurred less with the use of videolaryngoscopy (OR 0.16 (95%CI 0.04–0.75); p = 0.02). Videolaryngoscopy has added value for the experienced anaesthetist, improving first‐time success, the view of the glottis and reducing mucosal trauma.