Airway complication following functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Postoperative airway management after nasal endoscopic sinus surgery: A comparison of traditional nasal packing with nasal airway

BACKGROUND

Nasal packing after the nasal surgery can be extremely hazardous and can lead to airway complications such as dyspnea and respiratory obstruction.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed at comparing the traditional nasal packing with nasal airway during the immediate postoperative period in patients undergoing fibreoptic endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) under general anaesthesia (GA) with regards to airway management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study groups consisted of 90 ASA grade I and II patients aged 16 to 58 years who underwent FESS under GA. Patients were randomly assigned into three groups: Group NP, UA and Group BA of 30 patients each. At the end of surgery, Group NP patients were managed with traditional bilateral nasal packing while a presterilized 5 mm ID uncuffed ETT was cut to an appropriate size and inserted into one of the nostrils in UA and bilaterally in BA group patients. During postoperative period following parameters and variables were observed over the next 24 hours: Any respiratory distress or obstruction, pain and discomfort, oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure, bleeding episode, ease of suctioning through nasal airway, anaesthesiologists and surgeons satisfaction during postoperative period, discomfort during removal of nasal airway and any fresh bleeding episode during removal of nasal airway. The data was compiled and analyzed using Chi-square test and ANOVA with post-hoc significance. Value of P < 0.05 was considered significant and P < 0.0001 as highly significant.

RESULTS

The post-op mean cardio-respiratory parameters showed significant variations among NP group (P < 0.05) and the patient of UA and BA groups while intergroup comparison between UA and BA was non-significant (P > 0.05). Pain and discomfort, bleeding episode, ease of suctioning through nasal airway, pain and bleeding during removal of nasal airway (P < 0.0001) as well as surgeons and anaesthesiologists satisfaction criteria showed significant results among the NP group as compared to UA and BA groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present intervention to maintain airway patency can be termed as excellent with additional benefits like ease of suctioning; oxygen supplementation and a possible haemostatic effect due to pressure on the operated site. The low cost of the modified nasal airway and easily replicable design were the standout observations of the present study.

[Swollen and elongated uvula after general anaesthesia]

Localized pathological changes of the uvular are rare but potentially life-threatening complications after general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. A case of postoperative swollen and elongated uvula after general anaesthesia in a prone position is presented. A mechanical trauma seems to be the most likely etiology.

Airway Protection and the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Sinus and Nasal Surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to compare the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube for airway protection from blood during sinonasal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Nonrandomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo sinonasal surgery (septoplasty and/or endoscopic sinus surgery) were prospectively enrolled and grouped according to type of airway during general anesthesia with choice of airway device based on the anesthesiologist's preference. Clinical data were tabulated by case including airway device, patient age, weight, estimated blood loss, airway pop-off pressure, and emergence quality. At the conclusion of surgery, the airway was examined through the laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube with a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope to determine the amount of blood present on the vocal cords or in the trachea. The airway device was also evaluated postoperatively for the presence of blood.

RESULTS

Seventy-six adult patients were initially enrolled; two were excluded because fiberoptic evaluation of the airway could not be completed. Of the remaining 74 patients, an endotracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway were used in 31 and 43 patients, respectively. The two groups did not differ with respect to age, weight, estimated blood loss during surgery, pop-off pressure, or emergence quality (all P >.05). Patients managed with an laryngeal mask airway were significantly less likely to have blood staining the airway (glottis or trachea) than patients with an endotracheal tube (19.5% vs. 84.8%, chi test [P <.001]). However, the endotracheal tube provided better protection than the laryngeal mask airway against distal tracheal blood contamination (3.2% vs. 14.6%, respectively [P =.110]).

CONCLUSION

The laryngeal mask airway provides better protection of the upper airway from blood contamination during sinonasal surgery than a standard endotracheal tube, but there is a higher incidence of distal tracheal contamination. The laryngeal mask airway is a reasonable alternative to endotracheal intubation for airway management in sinonasal surgery.