Subject(s)
Cellulitis/physiopathology , Multiple Organ Failure/physiopathology , Streptococcal Infections/physiopathology , Streptococcus pyogenes/isolation & purification , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cellulitis/complications , Fatal Outcome , Humans , Male , Multiple Organ Failure/complications , Multiple Organ Failure/drug therapy , Streptococcal Infections/complications , Streptococcal Infections/drug therapyABSTRACT
We compared the times to intubate the trachea using three techniques in 60 healthy patients with normal airways: (i) fibreoptic intubation with a 6.0-mm reinforced tracheal tube through a standard laryngeal mask airway (laryngeal mask-fibreoptic group); (ii) fibreoptic intubation with a dedicated 7.0-mm silicone tracheal tube through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (intubating laryngeal mask-fibreoptic group); (iii) blind intubation with the dedicated 7.0-mm silicone tracheal tube through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (intubating laryngeal mask-blind group). Mean (SD) total intubation times were significantly shorter in the intubating laryngeal mask-blind group (49 (20) s) than in either of the other two groups (intubating laryngeal mask-fibreoptic 74 (21) s; laryngeal mask-fibreoptic group 75 (36) s; p < 0.001). However, intubation at the first attempt was less successful with the intubating laryngeal mask-blind technique (15/20 (75%)) than in the other two groups (intubating laryngeal mask-fibreoptic 19/20 (95%) and laryngeal mask-fibreoptic 16/20 (80%)) although these differences were not statistically significant. We conclude that in this patient group, all three techniques yield acceptable results. If there is a choice of techniques available, the intubating laryngeal mask-blind technique would result in the shortest intubation time.
