BackgroundMcGrath MAC video laryngoscope offers excellent laryngosopic views and increases the success rate of orotracheal intubation in some cases. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of McGrath MAC for routine nasotracheal intubation by comparing McGrath MAC with Airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope.MethodsA total of 60 adult patients with ASA physical status class 1 or 2, aged 20–70 years were enrolled in this study. Patients were scheduled for elective oral surgery under general anesthesia with nasotracheal intubation. Exclusion criteria included lack of consent and expected difficult airway. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups: McGrath MAC (n = 20), Airway scope (n = 20), and Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 20). After induction, nasotracheal intubation was performed by six expert anesthesiologists with more than 6 years of experience.ResultsThere were no significant differences in preoperative airway assessment among the three groups. Successful tracheal intubation time was 26.8 ± 5.7 (mean ± standard deviation) s for McGrath MAC, 36.4 ± 11.0 s for Airway scope, and 36.5 ± 8.9 s for Macintosh laryngoscope groups. The time for successful tracheal intubation for McGrath MAC group was significantly shorter than that for Airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.01). McGrath MAC significantly improved the Cormack Lehane grade for nasotracheal intubation compared with Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.05).ConclusionMcGrath MAC significantly facilitates routine nasotracheal intubation compared with Airwayscope and Macintosh laryngoscope by shortening the tracheal intubation time and improving the Cormack Lehane grade.Trial registrationUMINCTR Registration number UMIN000023506. Registered 5 Aug 2016.
While anaphylaxis can occur at any time during general anesthesia, 90% of cases occur at induction of anesthesia. As several drugs are administered simultaneously at this time, it is difficult to identify the causative agent. However, it has been found that rocuronium is the most common drug associated with perioperative anaphylaxis. We treated 2 cases of patients who were administered sugammadex for anaphylactic symptoms thought to be caused by rocuronium, after which the anaphylactic symptoms disappeared. One of the most important aspects of treating anaphylactic shock is improving hemodynamics. If signs indicating circulatory collapse are observed, epinephrine should be administered immediately. However, because rocuronium was suspected of being the causative agent, and taking the patients' clinical course over time into consideration, sugammadex was initially administered. As a result, symptoms improved. Therefore, we believe that the administration of sugammadex may be effective for treating anaphylaxis caused by rocuronium and also help in identifying the causative agent.
Background: 3M microfoam™ surgical tape (3ST: 3M Japan Limited) is used for pressure wound control of medical equipment. It is cushioned and can be fitted to any body part. Here we investigated whether 3ST prevents nasal pressure injury associated with nasotracheal intubation (NTI). Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blind study, enrolling 63 patients aged 20 to 70 years, who underwent general anesthesia with NTI. They were divided into 2 groups; those treated with 3ST (group S ; n = 31) and control (group C ; n = 31). After NTI and before securing the nasotracheal tube, a 35 × 25 mm 3ST was used to protect the nasal wing in group S , and the nasotracheal tube was fixed in place after NTI without protection in group C . The primary outcome was the presence or absence of nasal pressure injury after extubation. The Chi-Square test was used to assess the association between the 2 categorical variables. Results: Nasal pressure injury was observed in 7 and 19 patients from groups S and C , respectively, representing a significant difference between the 2 groups (24.1% vs 67.8%, P = .001). Remarkably, none of the patients developed ulcers. Conclusion: 3ST prevents nasal pressure injury associated with NTI.
BackgroundAirway Scope (AWS) with its plastic blade does not require a head-tilt or separate laryngoscopy to guide intubations. Therefore, we hypothesized that its use would reduce the intubation time (IT) and the frequency of airway complication events when compared with the use of Macintosh Laryngoscope (ML) for infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP).MethodsThe parents of all patients provided written consents; we enrolled 40 infants with CLP (ASA-PS 1). After inducing general anesthesia using sevoflurane and rocuronium, we performed orotracheal intubations using either AWS (n = 20) or ML (n = 20), randomly. We define the duration between manual manipulation using cross finger for maximum mouth opening and the first raising motion of the chest following intubation by artificial ventilation as “IT;” further, the measured IT as primary outcomes. Airway complications were considered secondary outcomes. Moreover, we looked for associations between IT and the patient’s characteristics: extensive clefts, age, height, and weight. We used the Mann–Whitney test and Fisher’s exact probability test for statistical analysis; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.ResultsThe mean IT was 31.5 ± 8.3 s in AWS group and 26.4 ± 8.9 s in ML group. Statistical significant difference was not found in IT between the two groups. The IT of AWS group was statistically related to extensive clefts. Airway complications were detected in ML group.ConclusionAWS could be useful for intubation of infants with CLP; it required IT similar to that required using ML, with a lower rate of airway complications.Trial registrationUMIN-CTR Registration number UMIN000024763.Registered 8 November 2016.
Background Nasal bleeding is the most common complication during nasotracheal intubation (NTI). To reduce nasal bleeding, the nasal mucosa is treated with vasoconstrictors (epinephrine [E] or tramazoline [T]) prior to NTI. This study aimed to determine whether E or T is more effective and safe for reducing nasal bleeding during NTI. Methods This study was preregistered on UMIN-CTR after being approved by the IRB of the School of Dentistry at Aichi Gakuin University. Written consent was received from all the patients. Total 206 patients aged 20–70 years and classified as 1–2 on American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with NTI. At last, 197 patients were randomly divided into two groups and treated with either E (n = 99; 3 patients were discontinued) or T (n = 98; 2 patient were discontinued). After induction of general anesthesia, each patient’s nasal mucosa was treated using either E or T. The E used in this study was BOSMIN® SOLUTION 0.1% (Daiichi-Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo), and the T used in this study was TRAMAZOLIN Nasal Solution 0.118% AFP, (Alfresa Pharma Corporation, Osaka). E was diluted five times according to the package insert (final concentration of E = 0.02%), and T was used in its original solution. After 2 min, NTI was performed via the right nostril. Primary outcome were the presence of nasal bleeding (if bleeding was recognized at the posterior pharyngeal wall via nasal cavity during intubation, it was defined as bleeding) and the degree of bleeding (classified as none, mild, moderate, or severe). Secondary outcomes were arrhythmia, and hemodynamic (mean atrial pressure and heart rate) changes associated with vasoconstrictors. Results The presence of bleeding was comparable in both groups (12.5%, E; 14.5%, T; P = 0.63). No significant difference between the groups regarding the degree of bleeding (P = 0.78) was observed, with most patients having no bleeding (n = 84, E; n = 82, T). No severe bleeding and no arrhythmias induced by vasoconstrictor were observed in the two groups. Conclusions Nasal treatment with E or T shows no difference in nasal bleeding during NTI. Although no arrhythmia associated with E was observed in this study, it has been reported in literature. Therefore, as frequency and degree of nasal bleeding were comparable, nasal treatment with T could reduce the risk of NTI. Trial registration UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000037907). Registered (05/09/2019).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.