Validation of Simple Methods to Select a Suitable Nostril for Nasotracheal Intubation

Perioperative Management of Oral Antithrombotics in Dentistry and Oral Surgery: Part 2

Part 1 of "Perioperative Management of Oral Antithrombotics in Dentistry and Oral Surgery" covered the physiological process of hemostasis and the pharmacology of both traditional and novel oral antiplatelets and anticoagulants. Part 2 of this review discusses various factors that are considered when developing a perioperative management plan for patients on oral antithrombotic therapy in consultation with dental professionals and managing physicians. Additionally included are how thrombotic and thromboembolic risks are assessed as well as how patient- and procedure-specific bleeding risks are evaluated. Special attention is given to the bleeding risks associated with procedures encountered when providing sedation and general anesthesia within the office-based dental environment.

Impact of choice of nostril on nasotracheal intubation when using video rigid stylet: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgeries under general anesthesia usually require nasotracheal intubation. When presented with patients with equally patent nostrils, selection of the nostril to use for intubation is an important decision for facilitating intubation. The objective of this trial is to determine whether choice of nostril impacts nasotracheal intubation when using a video rigid stylet in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

Fifty patients scheduled for elective oral and maxillofacial surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation were randomly allocated into two groups to undergo nasotracheal intubation through the left nostril (Group L, n = 25) or the right nostril (Group R, n = 25). Intubation was performed by experienced anesthesiologists using a video rigid stylet. The primary endpoint was time to successful intubation, which was defined as the duration from when the tip of the stylet-tube assembly entered the selected nostril to when the tube entered the trachea. Secondary outcomes included: length of time for device insertion; length of time for tube insertion; total success rate; first-attempt success rate; number of intubation attempts; requirement of airway assisted maneuvers; incidence and severity of epistaxis. Intubation-related adverse events were monitored for up to postoperative 24 h.

RESULTS

Median time (interquartile range) to tracheal intubation was 25.3 seconds (20.7 to 27.6) in Group L and 26.8 seconds (22.5 to 30.0) in Group R (median difference (MD) = 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to 5.7, P = 0.248). Nasotracheal intubation was successful in all patients in both groups and the first-attempt success rates in both groups were similar (Group L: 96% (24/25); Group R: 96% (24/25); relative risk (RR) 1.0; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.1; P > 0.999). No significant difference of requirement of assisted maneuvers was noted between the two groups (Group L: 36% (9/25); Group R: 28% (7/25); RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.8; P = 0.544). Furthermore, all patients showed a high quality of visualization of the glottis (Cormack and Lehane Grade I). For safety outcomes, the incidence and severity of epistaxis during intubation was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the selection of nostrils and intubation-related adverse events up to 24 h after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering which nostril to use for intubation with video rigid stylet, either nostril can be used similarly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT05218590.

Using of panoramic and posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs to identify the optimal nasal passage for nasotracheal intubation

Background and Aim

Selecting the optimum nasal passage for nasotracheal intubation is quite important in the maxillofacial surgeries for the success of intubation and the reduction of potential complications such as nasal mucosal laceration, epistaxis, avulsion of the inferior and middle turbinates, and septal laceration.

Materials and Methods

The present study evaluates standard panoramic radiographs (PR) and posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs (PACR) to determine the optimal nasal passage for nasotracheal intubation and compares the results with those of routine anesthesiological occlusion and spatula tests (ST). The results of occlusion tests (OT), ST, and radiological assessments of 60 patients prior to nasotracheal intubation were compared with the nasal endoscopic assessment results, and complications were evaluated.

Results

There was no significant association between the OT and nasal endoscopy results (P = 0.075). A significant association was found between the ST and nasal endoscopy results (P = 0.000), and between the radiological assessments and the nasal endoscopy results (P = 0.000). Compatibility with nasal endoscopy was 54% when the occlusion and ST were evaluated together, 75% when the OT and radiological assessments were evaluated together, and 86% when the ST and radiological assessments were evaluated together. The highest level of compatibility was 92% when all the tests were evaluated together.

Conclusion

The simple tests alone were found to be inadequate for the selection of the optimal nasal passage. Evaluation of PR and PACR, which are commonly used in maxillofacial surgeries, together with simple anesthesiological examination tests would increase nasotracheal intubation success and decrease complications.

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

Assessment of airway is recommended by every airway guideline to ensure safe airway management. Numerous unifactorial and multifactorial tests have been used for airway assessment over the years. However, there is none that can identify all the difficult airways. The reasons for the inadequacy of these methods of airway assessment might be their dependence on difficult to remember and apply mnemonics and scores, inability to identify all the variations from the “normal”, and their lack of stress on evaluating the non-patient factors. Airway Management Foundation (AMF) experts and members have been using a different approach, the AMF Approach, to overcome these problems inherent to most available models of airway assessment. This approach suggests a three-step model of airway assessment. The airway manager first makes the assessment of the patient through focused history, focused general examination, and focused airway assessment using the AMF “line of sight” method. The AMF “line of sight” method is a non-mnemonic, non-score-based method of airway assessment wherein the airway manager examines the airway along the line of sight as it moves over the airway and notes down all the variations from the normal. Assessment of non-patient factors follows next and finally there is assimilation of all the information to help identify the available, difficult, and impossible areas of the airway management. The AMF approach is not merely intubation centric but also focuses on all other methods of securing airway and maintaining oxygenation. Airway assessment in the presence of contagion like COVID-19 is also discussed.