Advertisement

The gum elastic bougie eases tracheal intubation while applying cricoid pressure compared to a stylet

  • Takashi Noguchi
  • Kazunori Koga
  • Yousuke Shiga
  • Akio Shigematsu
Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Respiration and Airway

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the ease of tracheal intubation facilitated by the gum elastic bougie or the malleable stylet while applying cricoid pressure.

Methods

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I–III adult patients undergoing elective surgeries participated in this study. After induction of anesthesia with 2.5 mg·kg−1 propofol and vecuronium 0.1 mg·kg−1, the laryngeal view was assessed without and with cricoid pressure. Patients were allocated randomly into two groups: a gum elastic bougie or stylet group. One of the two devices was used for tracheal intubation while applying cricoid pressure. The duration and ease of tracheal intubation was recorded.

Main results

In 58 patients, the trachea was intubated at the first attempt. In the stylet group, tracheal intubation was difficult and needed more time, especially when the glottic opening was not visible. In the bougie group, the duration and ease of intubation was not influenced by laryngeal view. In the remaining two patients with Cook’s modified 3b laryngeal view, it was impossible to intubate the trachea with these devices.

Conclusions

Applying cricoid pressure worsened laryngeal view. The use of a gum elastic bougie was more effective than the use of a stylet to facilitate intubation.

Keywords

Tracheal Intubation Tracheal Tube Cricoid Pressure Rapid Sequence Induction Difficult Tracheal 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.

La bougie flexible, comparée au stylet, facilite l’intubation endotrachéale pendant la compression cricoïdienne

Résumé

Objectif

Comparer l’intubation endotrachéale facilitée par la bougie flexible ou le stylet maniable pendant l’application de la compression cricoïdienne.

Méthode

Soixante patients adultes, d’état physique ASA I– III, devant subir une intervention chirurgicale réglée ont participé à l’étude. Après l’induction de l’anesthésie avec 2,5 mg·kg−1 de propofol et 0,1 mg·kg−1 de vécuronium, la visualisation du larynx a été évaluée avec et sans compression cricoïdienne. Les patients ont été répartis au hasard en deux groupes pour l’intubation endotrachéale avec la bougie flexible ou le stylet pendant l’application de la compression cricoïdienne. La durée et la facilité de l’intubation ont été notées.

Constatations principales

Chez 58 patients, l’intubation a été réussie au premier essai. Dans le groupe avec stylet, l’intubation a été difficile et a exigé plus de temps, surtout quand l’ouverture glottique n’était pas visible. Dans le groupe avec bougie, la duré et la facilité de l’intubation n’ont pas été influencées par la visualisation du larynx. Chez les deux patients restants qui présentaient une vue laryngée de classe 3b modifiée de Cook, il a été impossible de réaliser l’intubation avec l’un ou l’autre instrument.

Conclusion

L’application de la compression cricoïdienne a nui à la visualisation du larynx. La bougie flexible a été plus efficace que le stylet pour faciliter l’intubation.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosen M. Anaesthesia for obstetrics (Editorial). Anaesthesia 1981; 36: 145–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crawford JS. The ‘contracricoid’ cuboid aid to tracheal intubation (Letter). Anaesthesia 1982; 37: 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanner RG, Asai T. Safe use of cricoid pressure (Editorial). Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brimacombe JR, Berry AM. Cricoid pressure. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44: 414–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson ME. Predicting difficult intubation (Editorial). Br J Anaesth 1993; 71: 333–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melker RJ. Airway devices and their application.In: Kirby RR, Gravenstein N, Lobato EB, Gravenstein JS (Eds.). Clinical Anesthesia Practice, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.; 2001: 303–28.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCarroll SM, Lamont BJ, Buckland MR, Yates APB. The gum-elastic bougie: old but still useful (Letter). Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 643–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris J, Cook TM. Rapid sequence induction: a national survey of practice. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 1090–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Latto IP, Stacey M, Mecklenburgh J, Vaughan RS. Survey of the use of the gum elastic bougie in clinical practice. Anaesthesia 2002; 57: 379–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gataure PS, Vaughan RS, Latto IP. Simulated difficult intubation. Comparison of the gum elastic bougie and the stylet. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 935–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nolan JP, Wilson ME. Orotracheal intubation in patients with potential cervical spine injuries. An indication for the gum elastic bougie. Anaesthesia 1993; 48: 630–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, et al. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Can Anaesth Soc J 1985; 32: 429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook TM. A new practical classification of laryngeal view. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 274–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kidd JF, Dyson A, Latto IP. Successful difficult intubation. Use of the gum elastic bougie. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 437–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dogra S, Falconer R, Latto IP. Successful difficult intubation. Tracheal tube placement over a gum-elastic bougie. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 774–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ovassapian A, Meyer RM. Airway management.In: Longnecker DE, Murphy FL (Eds.). Dripps, Eckenhoff, Vandam Introduction To Anesthesia, 9th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.; 1996: 137–58.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Asai T, Murao K, Tsutsumi T, Shingu K. Ease of tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask during manual in-line head and neck stabilisation. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 82–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 1105–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crosby ET, Cooper RM, Douglas MJ, et al. The unanticipated difficult airway with recommendations for management. Can J Anaesth 1998; 45: 757–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daly LE, Bourke GJ, McGilvray J. Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics, 4th ed. London: Blackwell Scientific; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viswanathan S, Campbell C, Wood DG, Riopelle JM, Naraghi M. The Eschmann tracheal tube introducer (gum elastic bougie). Anesthesiol Rev 1992; 19: 29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harmer M. Complications of tracheal intubation.In: Latto IP, Vaughan RS (Eds.). Difficulties in Tracheal Intubation, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.; 1996: 291–306.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stasiuk RBP. Improving styletted oral tracheal intubation: rational use of the OTSU. Can J Anesth 2001; 48: 911–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiss M, Hartmann K, Fischer J, Gerber AC. Videointuboscopic assistance is a useful aid to tracheal intubation in pediatric patients. Can J Anesth 2001; 48: 691–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Noguchi
    • 1
  • Kazunori Koga
    • 2
  • Yousuke Shiga
    • 1
  • Akio Shigematsu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiaChikuho Rosai HospitalKaho-gun
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiaUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of MedicineKitakyushuJapan

Personalised recommendations