JOURNAL ARTICLE

Roles of cookgas and fastrach intubating laryngeal mask airway for anticipated difficult tracheal intubation

Yang Dong, Deng Xiao-Ming, Tong Shi-Yi, Tang Geng-Zhi, Wei Ling-Xin, Sui Jing-Hu, Wang Lei
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae 2013, 35 (2): 207-12
23643011
Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of blind intubation through the Cookgas intubating laryngeal airway(CILA) or Fastrach intubating laryngeal mask airway(FT-LMA) for anticipated difficult tracheal intubation. Methods Eighty-six patients with anticipated difficult tracheal intubation who were undergoing elective plastic surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into CILA group(n=43) and FT-LMA group(n=43) . After general anesthesia being induced and CILA or FT-LMA being inserted, the patients were treated with blind intubation through CILA or FT-LMA. In each case, the number and the time of intubating laryngeal airway(ILA) insertion and blind intubation attempts and ILA removal were recorded. The view of glottis under fiberoptic bronchoscope(FOB) via CILA or FT-LMA was recorded. In addition, noninvasive blood pressure and heart rate were recorded before and after intravenous anesthetic induction, at ILA insertion, at intubation, at ILA removal and every minute thereafter for 5 minutes. Results CILA or FT-LMA was inserted successfully in all 86 patients. The rate of the first successful insertion was not significantly different between two groups(P>0.05) . In CILA group, the first intubation attempt succeeded in 35 patients;5 and 2 cases were intubated blindly at the second and the third attempt, one patient failed who was intubated successfully by FOB via CILA. In FT-LMA group, 32 patients were intubated successfully at the first attempt, 4 at the second attempt, 3 at the third attempt, and 4 cases failed, three of them were intubated smoothly with FOB through FT-LMA, one failed patient was intubated by FOB. The time of FT-LMA insertion(34.2∓13.9) s was significantly longer when compared with CILA(22.4∓18.9) s (P<0.05) . However, the time of blind intubation through CILA and FT-LMA [(46.0∓26.7) s vs.(51.8∓41.1) s]and the time of ILA removal[(39.3∓11.9) s vs.(35.3∓10.4) s] were not significantly different between groups(P>0.05) . Hemodynamic changes during blind intubation in the two groups showed no significant differences(P>0.05) . Conclusions Blind intubation via CILA or FT-LMA is safe and effective for anticipated difficult tracheal intubation. Nevertheless, CILA is easier to be inserted, with relatively higher success rate of blind intubation.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
23643011
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"