Comparison of tracheal introducers

A comparative randomized trial of intubation success in difficult intubation cases: the use of a Frova intubation catheter versus a Bonfils intubation fiberoscope

Introduction

A difficult airway is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in patients who undergo surgical interventions. Therefore, many devices and algorithms have been developed for the management of a difficult airway. However no study has been conducted comparing Frova catheter (FC) and a Bonfils fiberoscope (BF) to date.

Aim

To compare the effectiveness and success of two devices, a FC and BF, in difficult intubation cases.

Material and methods

Design: Single-centre randomized controlled trial in patients with difficult airways. The assignment order was created by unplanned number charts, and the assignment was hidden in closed covers, which were not unlocked until case permission had been provided. Setting: The trial was undertaken in a university hospital in Turkey. The primary analysis was based on 60 participants (n = 30, n = 30) with difficult intubation. The main outcomes were the success rates of placement of the tracheal tube in the trachea and the duration of the tracheal intubation process.

Results

In the BF group, successful intubation was carried out in 25 of the 30 (83.3%) patients, whereas intubation was successful in 28 of the 30 patients (93.3%) in the FC group. Patients who could not be intubated with the first device were intubated with the other device. The mean duration of intubation was 109 (85–140) s in the BF group, whereas it was 38.8 (26–60) s in the FC group.

Conclusions

Both devices were successful in difficult intubation cases. However, given the shorter duration of intubation using the FC and its lower cost as compared with that of the BF, the FC can be considered superior to the BF in difficult intubation cases.

Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of the Frova single-use tracheal tube introducer

A prospective observational study design was used to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the Frova single-use tracheal tube introducer. Data were collected from 203 patients. Consultants and trainee anaesthetists completed 61 (30%) and 142 (70%) forms respectively, when the Frova introducer was used. It was successfully placed in the trachea in 194/203 (96%) of patients with two attempts at placement by the first clinician. The first clinician failed to either pass the Frova introducer or railroad the tube in six (3%) and 10 (5%) of the 203 patients respectively. The success rate by the first clinician was significantly influenced by the laryngeal view obtained (p < 0.0001). There was only one failure to place the Frova introducer in the trachea by either the first or second clinician. Airway trauma was detected in 11/203 (5%) patients. In six of these 11 patients blood was detected on tracheal suction; 'distal hold up' was elicited in five of these six. The Frova introducer has a high success rate for tracheal placement but has noteworthy potential to produce airway trauma.