Which airway should I use?

Comparison of the Success Rate of Intubation Between the LMA Fastrach and AirQ-ILA Methods in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery During General Anaesthesia

Background

Rapid placement of a reliable airway is the most important task in anesthesia practice. Airway management is a critical skill to provide safe anesthesia since morbidity. In addition, mortality due to anesthesia could be linked to difficulty or failure in airway management. In this study, intubation success was compared between two methods, AirQ-ILA and LMAfastrach, among candidates for elective surgery under general anesthesia.

Methods

In this clinical trial, patients, who were candidates for elective surgery under general anesthesia at Firoozgar and Rasoul Akram Hospitals, were randomly divided into LMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA groups. Heart rate before and after induction and intubation, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, duration of device insertion, intubation time, number of attempts until successful device insertion and trachea intubation, and success or failure in the insertion of the device and the tube were recorded; as for statistical analysis, SPSS version 21 was considered.

Results

In comparison with the LMAfastrach group, the device insertion time and intubation time were significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group (P < 0.05). However, the groups showed no significant difference regarding the number of device and tube insertion attempts (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the success of device insertion and intubation in either LMAfastrach or AirQ-ILA group (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The LMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA methods were not significantly different regarding the success of airway instrument application and intubation, while the device insertion time and intubation time were significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group in comparison with the LMAfastrach group.

Use of the GlideScope®-Ranger for pre-hospital intubations by anaesthesia trained emergency physicians - an observational study

Background

Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation is more difficult than in the operating room (OR). Therefore, enhanced airway management devices such as video laryngoscopes may be helpful to improve the success rate of pre-hospital intubation. We describe the use of the Glidescope®-Ranger (GS-R) as an alternative airway tool used at the discretion of the emergency physician (EP) in charge.

Methods

During a 3.5 year period, the GS-R was available to be used either as the primary or backup tool for pre-hospital intubation by anaesthesia trained EP with limited expertise using angulated videolaryngoscopes.

Results

During this period 672 patients needed pre-hospital intubation of which the GS-R was used in 56 cases. The overall GS-R success rate was 66 % (range of 34–100 % among EP). The reasons for difficulties or failure included inexperience of the EP with the GS-R, impaired view due to secretion, vomitus, blood or the inability to see the screen in very bright environment due to sunlight.

Conclusion

Special expertise and substantial training is needed to successfully accomplish tracheal intubation with the GS-R in the pre-hospital setting. Providers inexperienced with DL as well as video-assisted intubation should not expect to be able to perform tracheal intubation easily just because a videolaryngoscope is available. Additionally, indirect laryngoscopy might be difficult or even impossible to achieve in the pre-hospital setting due to impeding circumstances such as blood, secretions or bright sun-light. Therefore, videolaryngoscopes, here the GS-R, should not be considered as the “Holy Grail” of endotracheal intubation, neither for the experts nor for inexperienced providers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12873-016-0069-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of extraglottic airways in patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery without the need for tracheal intubation

Background:

Second generation extraglottic airway devices with gastric access and separate breathing channels have ushered in a new era where their use is increasingly prevalent in surgical patients who would have been traditionally intubated for general anesthesia. New innovations like the i-gel, which is constructed of a thermoplastic elastomer, provide an airtight seal around patient's perilaryngeal anatomy without the inflatable cuff mechanism found in the laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMAS).

Methods:

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing the LMAS with the i-gel in 70 anesthetized paralyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic female sterilization. Our primary outcome measure was the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). We studied secondary outcomes of successful first attempt insertion rates, time and ease of the airway and gastric tube insertion, leak fractions and pharyngeal morbidity.

Results:

We found no difference in the OLP between LMAS and i-gel, 25.9 (4.2) versus 24.4 (4.3) s, P=0.153. Both devices had similar first attempt insertion rates (LMAS 94% vs. i-gel 91%) with similar ease and comparable times to achieve an effective airway, LMAS 14.7 (2.7) versus i-gel 16.5 (9.6) s, P=0.306, although gastric tube insertion was easier and faster for the LMAS, 7.9 (1.9) versus i-gel 14.8 (7.7) s, P<0.005. Intraoperatively, there was a significantly greater leak fraction with the i-gel of 0.06 (0.03) versus 0.04 (0.02) with the LMAS, P=0.013. Three patients (8.6%) with LMAS had mild sore throat; one patient (2.9%) had mucosal injury. No complications were documented in the i-gel group.

Conclusions:

Both these extraglottic airway devices offer similar OLPs, high insertion success rates at the first attempt with similar ease and insertion times (albeit longer gastric tube insertion with i-gel). Both provided effective ventilation despite a higher leak fraction with i-gel that was clinically inconsequential.

The recovery position for posterior surgery of the ankle and hindfoot

Most posterior hindfoot procedures have been described with the patient positioned prone. This affords excellent access to posterior hindfoot structures but has several disadvantages for the management of the airway, the requirement for an endotracheal tube in all patients, difficulty with ventilation and an increased risk of pressure injuries, especially with regard to reduced ocular perfusion. We describe use of the 'recovery position', which affords equivalent access to the posterior aspect of the ankle and hindfoot without the morbidity associated with the prone position. A laryngeal mask rather than endotracheal tube may be used in most patients. In this annotation we describe this technique, which offers a safe and simple alternative method of positioning patients for posterior hindfoot and ankle surgery.

The critical airway in adults: The facts

An algorithm on the indications and timing for a surgical airway in emergency as such cannot be drawn due to the multiplicity of variables and the inapplicability in the context of life-threatening critical emergency, where human brain elaborates decisions better in cluster rather than in binary fashion. In particular, in emergency or urgent scenarios, there is no clear or established consensus as to specifically who should receive a tracheostomy as a life-saving procedure; and more importantly, when. The two classical indications for emergency tracheostomy (laryngeal injury and failure to secure airway with endotracheal intubation or cricothyroidotomy) are too generic and encompass a broad spectrum of possibilities. In literature, specific indications for emergency tracheostomy are scattered and are biased, partially comprehensive, not clearly described or not homogeneously gathered. The review highlights the indications and timing for an emergency surgical airway and gives recommendations on which surgical airway method to use in critical airway.

Issues of critical airway management (Which anesthesia; which surgical airway?)

Which anesthesia for patients with critical airway? Safe and effective analgesia and anesthesia in critical airway is a skilled task especially after severe maxillofacial injury combined with head injury and hemorrhagic shock. If on one side sedation is wanted, on the other hand it may worsen the airway and hemodynamic situation to a point where hypoventilation and decrease of blood pressure, common side-effect of many opioids, may prejudice the patient's level of consciousness and hemodynamic compensation, compounding an already critical situation. What to do when endotracheal intubation fails and blood is trickling down the airways in an unconscious patient or when a conscious patient has to sit up to breathe? Which surgical airway in critical airway? Comparative studies among the various methods of emergency surgical airway would be unethical; furthermore, operator's training and experience is relevant for indications and performance.

Pilot study of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in clinical use

The air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway (ILA) is a newly introduced extraglottic airway device. In this pilot study, we evaluated its use as a routine airway device during positive pressure ventilation. Ease of endotracheal intubation through the device was also assessed. Fifty-nine ASA I and II patients undergoing elective surgery received an air-Q ILA and an endotracheal tube where indicated. Insertion, ventilation and intubation characteristics were noted, as well as throat morbidity and occurrence of adverse events. An air-Q ILA was successfully inserted in 100% of patients. Mean leak pressure was 19 +/- 5 cmH2O. Endotracheal intubation was indicated in 19 patients and successful in 58% on the first attempt and 74% in total. Ten percent of the study patients were noted to have dysphagia. One patient was diagnosed with bilateral lingual nerve injury but made a complete recovery in four weeks. The air-Q ILA is an adequate extraglottic airway device in terms of insertion and ventilation. However the proposed advantage of ease of endotracheal intubation requires further investigation.

Characteristics and outcome of prehospital paediatric tracheal intubation attended by anaesthesia-trained emergency physicians

AIM

To collect data regarding prehospital paediatric tracheal intubation by emergency physicians skilled in advanced airway management.

METHODS

A prospective 8-year observational study of a single emergency physician-staffed emergency medical service. Self-reporting by emergency physicians of all children aged 0-14 years who had prehospital tracheal intubation and were attended by either anaesthesia-trained emergency physicians (group 1) or by a mixture of anaesthesia and non-anaesthesia-trained emergency physicians (group 2).

RESULTS

Eighty-two out of 2040 children (4.0%) had prehospital tracheal intubation (58 in group 1). The most common diagnoses were trauma (50%; in school children, 73.0%), convulsions (13.4%) and SIDS (12.2%; in infants, 58.8%). The overall tracheal intubation success rate was 57 out of 58 attempts (98.3%). Compared to older children, infants had a higher number of Cormack-Lehane scores of 3 or 4, "difficult to intubate" status (both 3 out of 13; 23.1%) and a lower first attempt success rate for tracheal intubation (p=0.04). Among all 82 children 71 (86.6%) survived to hospital admission and 63 (76.8%) to discharge. Of the 63 survivors, 54 (85.7%) demonstrated a favourable or unchanged neurological outcome (PCPC 1-3). The survival and neurological outcomes of infants were inferior compared to older children (p<0.001). On average an emergency physician performed one prehospital tracheal intubation in 3 years in a child and one in 13 years in an infant.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthesia-trained emergency physicians working in our system report high success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation in children. Survival and neurological outcomes were considerably better than reported in previous studies.