Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 641–645 | Cite as

The LMA Fastrach™ facilitates fibreoptic intubation in oral cancer patients

  • Sushma Bhatnagar
  • Seema Mishra
  • Rajeev Ranjan Jha
  • Amit K. Singhal
  • Naresh Bhatnagar
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare ease of endotracheal intubation with the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) tracheal tube (TT; for LMA-Fastrach™) and regular PVC TT (Portex) for nasotracheal fibreoptic intubation in oral cancer patients with a difficult airway.

Methods

40 patients of physical status ASA I-II with a history of previous oral cancer surgery and/or postoperative radiotherapy scheduled for oral cancer surgery were randomly allocated by sealed envelopes to undergo tracheal intubation with either the ILMA TT or a standard TT. Ease of nasal passage of the TT and ease of tracheal intubation over the fibrescope was assessed. Peak airway pressures were assessed intraoperatively and postoperatively for 12 hr.

Results

The use of the ILMA TT increased the ease of nasotracheal intubation by increasing the percentage of successful tube placements at the first attempt (80%) in comparison with standard TT (35%); (P < 0.05). Peak airway pressures were found to remain low with the ILMA TT. None of the patients experienced any airway related complications.

Conclusions

Use of a soft, flexible, nonkinking ILMA TT with a tapered tip design facilitates passage into the trachea over a fibreoptic bronchoscope and allows maintenance of lower airway pressures. The ILMA TT may be a useful adjunct for management of the difficult airway in oral cancer surgery.

Keywords

Oral Cancer Tracheal Intubation Tracheal Tube Difficult Airway Nasotracheal Intubation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Le ML Fastrach™ facilite l’intubation fibroscopique dans les cas de cancer de la bouche

Résumé

Objectif

Comparer la facilité de l’intubation endotrachéale avec le tube endotrachéal (TE) du masque laryngé d’intubation (MLI, pour le ML Fastrach™) et le TE PVC (Portex) régulier pour l’intubation fibroscopique nasotrachéale quand l’intubation était difficile chez des patients atteints de cancer de la bouche.

Méthode

Quarante patients d’état physique ASA I-II opérés pour un cancer de la bouche et/ou ayant reçu une radiothérapie postopératoire ont été répartis au hasard pour être intubés avec le TE MLI ou le TE standard. La facilité de l’insertion nasale du TE et de l’intubation endotrachéale au-dessus du fibroscope a été évaluée. Les pressions maximales des voies aériennes ont été notées pendant et après l’opération, pendant 12 h.

Résultats

L’usage du TE MLI a augmenté la facilité de l’intubation nasotrachéale en haussant le pourcentage de mises en place réussies au premier essai (80 %) en comparaison du TE standard (35 %); (P < 0,05) dans les cas d’intubation de grade I. Les pressions maximales des voies aériennes sont demeurées faibles avec le TE MLI. Il n’y a pas eu de complications reliées aux voies respiratoires.

Conclusion

L’usage d’un TE MLI mou, flexible et armé, muni d’une pointe effilée, facilite le passage dans la trachée au-dessus du fibroscope bronchique et permet de maintenir de basses pressions dans les voies respiratoires. Le TE MLI peut être un accessoire utile dans les cas d’accès difficile aux voies aériennes en chirurgie de cancer buccal.

References

  1. 1.
    Brull SJ, Wiklund R, Ferris C, Connelly NR, Ehrenwerth J, Silverman DG. Facilitation of fiberoptic orotracheal intubation with a flexible tracheal tube. Anesth Analg 1994; 78:746–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katsnelson T, Frost EA, Farcon E, Goldiner PL. When the endotracheal tube will not pass over the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (Letter). Anesthesiology 1992; 76:151–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hughes S, Smith JE. Nasotracheal tube placement over the fiberscope laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 1996; 51:1026–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beckers HL. Use of stabilized, armoured endotracheal tube in maxillofacial surgery. Anesthesiology 1982; 56:309–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hakala P, Randell T, Valli H. Comparison between tracheal tubes for orotracheal fibreoptic intubation. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82:135–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ovassapian A, Yelich SJ, Dykes MH, Brunner EE. Fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation-incidence and causes of failure. Anesth Analg 1983; 62:692–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones HE, Pearce AC, Moore P. Fibreoptic intubation. Influence of tracheal tube tip design. Anaesthesia 1993;48:672–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koga K, Asai T, Latto IP, Vaughan RS. Effect of the size of a tracheal tube and the efficacy of the use of the laryngeal mask for fibrescope-aided tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1997; 52:131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greer JR, Smith SP, Strang T. A comparison of tracheal tube tip designs on the passage of an endotracheal tube during oral fiberoptic intubation. Anesthesiology 2001;94:729–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dougherty TB, Clayman GL. Airway management of surgical patients with head and neck malignancies. Anesthesiol Clin North America 1998; 16:547–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makino H, Katoh T, Kobayashi S, Bito H, Sato S. The effects of tracheal tube tip design and tube thickness on laryngeal pass ability during oral tube exchange with an introducer. Anesth Analg 2003; 97:285–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucas DN, Yentis SM. A comparison of the intubating laryngeal mask tracheal tube with a standard tracheal tube for fibreoptic intubation. Anaesthesia 2000; 55:358–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kristensen MS. The Parker Flex-Tip tube versus a standard tube for fiberoptic orotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 2003; 98:354–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spiess BD, Rothenberg DM, Buckley S. Complete obstruction of armored endotracheal tubes (Letter). Anesth Analg 1991; 73:95–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brusco L Jr, Weissman C. Pharyngeal obstruction of a reinforced orotracheal tube. Anesth Analg 1993; 76:653–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paul M, Dueck M, Kampe S, Petzke F. Failure to detect an unusual obstruction in a reinforced endotracheal tube with fiberoptic examination. Anesth Analg 2003;97:909–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen DD, Dillon JB. Hazards of armored endotracheal tubes. Anesth Analg 1972; 51:856–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sushma Bhatnagar
    • 1
  • Seema Mishra
    • 1
  • Rajeev Ranjan Jha
    • 1
  • Amit K. Singhal
    • 2
  • Naresh Bhatnagar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology Institute Rotary Cancer HospitalAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations