» Articles » PMID: 23400994

Cuff Inflation-supplemented Laryngoscope-guided Nasal Intubation: a Comparison of Three Endotracheal Tubes

Overview
Journal Anesth Analg
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2013 Feb 13
PMID 23400994
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Softer endotracheal (ET) tubes are more difficult to navigate in the oropharynx than the stiffer polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes during nasotracheal intubation (NTI). Cuff inflation has been used to guide PVC tubes into the laryngeal inlet during blind NTI, but it has not been tested when performing NTI under direct laryngoscopic guidance. We assessed the role of cuff inflation in improving oropharyngeal navigation of 3 ET tubes of varying stiffness during direct laryngoscope-guided NTI. Simultaneously, we also assessed and compared the nasotracheal navigability and incidence of nasal injury with these ET tubes during cuff inflation-supplemented, laryngoscope-guided NTI.

Methods: One hundred sixty-two adults were randomized to undergo NTI with either a conventional PVC (n = 54), wire reinforced (WR; n = 54) or a silicone-tipped WR (SWR; n = 54) ET tube. Ease of insertion of these tubes was assessed during passage from nose into oropharynx, from oropharynx into laryngeal inlet aided by cuff inflation if needed, and from laryngeal inlet into trachea. Nasal morbidity was assessed by a blinded observer.

Results: All ET tubes could be inserted into the trachea. Seventy-one of 162 ET tubes could be inserted from the oropharynx into the laryngeal inlet without cuff inflation. Eighty-six of the remaining 91 tubes that did not enter the laryngeal inlet without cuff inflation could be inserted when using the cuff inflation technique. Thus, a total of 157 ET tubes could be inserted into the laryngeal inlet with cuff inflation (95% confidence interval of difference of proportions between total number of tubes passed [157] and those without cuff inflation [71]: 53% [45%-61%]). The remaining 5 tubes had to be inserted with the help of Magill forceps. The incidence of epistaxis was lowest with the SWR tube (difference of proportions [95% confidence interval] SWR versus PVC 27% [8%-45%]; SWR versus WR 20% [1%-38%]; WR versus PVC 7% [-12% to 26%]).

Conclusions: The cuff inflation technique consistently improved the oropharyngeal insertion of the 3 ET tubes of varying stiffness during direct laryngoscope-guided NTI. Supplemented with the cuff inflation technique, the SWR ET tube seems to be better than the PVC and WR ET tubes in terms of complete nasotracheal navigability and less perioperative nasal injury.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Success Rate and Safety of Nasotracheal Intubation by Conventional and Finger-Guided Method in Patients Undergoing Maxillofacial Surgery.

Hashemi S, Shetabi H, Talakoub R, Aminizad A Adv Biomed Res. 2023; 12:35.

PMID: 37057229 PMC: 10086639. DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_255_21.


A comparison of intubating conditions for nasotracheal intubation with standard direct Macintosh laryngoscope versus C-MAC® video laryngoscope employing cuff inflation technique in adult patients.

Kasaudhan S, Gupta M, Singh K, Khan A Indian J Anaesth. 2021; 65(Suppl 3):S104-S109.

PMID: 34703054 PMC: 8500197. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_236_21.


Comparison of a tube core and Magill forceps for nasotracheal intubation: a randomised controlled trial.

Hu R, Niu J, Wu L, Sun H, Sun P, Huang J Trials. 2021; 22(1):697.

PMID: 34645510 PMC: 8513329. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05677-9.


Comparison of cuff inflation method with curvature control modification in thermosoftened endotracheal tubes during nasotracheal intubation - A prospective randomised controlled study.

Prashant H, Kerai S, Saxena K, Wadhwa B, Gaba P Indian J Anaesth. 2021; 65(5):369-376.

PMID: 34211194 PMC: 8202803. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_1393_20.


A new approach to airway assessment-"Line of Sight" and more. Recommendations of the Task Force of Airway Management Foundation (AMF).

Kumar R, Kumar S, Misra A, Kumar N, Gupta A, Kumar P J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 36(3):303-315.

PMID: 33487896 PMC: 7812962. DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_236_20.