RESUMO
Background: The use of a double-lumen endotracheal tube is one of the common anesthetic techniques for operations in the thoracic cavity. However, when compared to a single-lumen tube, placement of a double-lumen tube is technically more difficult as a result of which it takes more time to insert and is associated with more complications such as mucosal injury, hoarseness, and sore throat, even in patients with no anticipated airway difficulty. The CMAC D-blade that is usually used in patients with anticipated airway difficulty, could assist in smooth and quick placement of double-lumen tube (DLT) even in patients with no anticipated airway difficulty. Aim of the Study: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the C-MAC D-blade in reducing the time taken to visualize the glottis and intubate patients with normal airway with a double-lumen tube. Setting and Design: This was a prospective open-label randomized control trial in a tertiary hospital. Materials and Methods: Seventy-three consenting adult patients with physical status classes I and II, as determined by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, scheduled to undergo elective thoracotomy, were randomly allocated to receive either C-MAC D-blade (Group D) or Macintosh blade (Group M). The primary objective was to compare the time taken for visualization of the glottis and intubation. Statistical Analysis Used: Chi-square/Fisher's exact test and t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Seventy-three patients were randomized (Group D = 36; Group M = 37). Time to visualize the glottic structures (4.56 ± 2.396 s vs. 7.27 ± 4.891 s, P = 0.01) was significantly better in Group D; however, the mean intubation time was comparable (55.92 ± 18.749 s vs. 51.08 ± 15.269 s, P = 0.61). Conclusion: C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope offers a better glottic view and lesser time to visualize glottis when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. However, the time taken to insert the DLT after visualization was longer. We infer that there is no advantage in the routine use of C-MAC D-blade for DLT insertion in patients with no anticipated airway difficulty.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Double lumen tube (DLT) insertion for isolation of lung during thoracic surgery is challenging and is associated with considerable airway trauma. The advent of video laryngoscopy has revolutionized the management of difficult airway. Use of video laryngoscopy may reduce the time to intubate for DLTs even in patients with normal airway. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 87 ASA 1-3 adults, scheduled to undergo elective thoracotomy, requiring a DLT were randomly allocated to videolaryngoscope (CMAC) arm or Macintosh laryngoscope arm. It was on open label study, and only the patient was blinded. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mean time taken for DLT intubation with CMAC (Mac 3) and Macintosh laryngoscope blade and the secondary objectives included the hemodynamic response to intubation, the level of difficulty using the intubation difficulty scale (IDS), and complications associated with intubation. Data was analysed using the statistical software SPSS (version 18.0). RESULTS: The time taken for intubation was not significantly different (42.8 ± 14.8 s for CMAC and 42.5 ± 11.5 s for Macintosh laryngoscope P -0.908). The CMAC video laryngoscope was associated with an improved laryngoscopy grade (Grade I in 81.8% with CMAC and in 46.5% with Macintosh), less pressure applied on the tongue, and less external laryngeal pressure required. Hemodynamic responses to intubation were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Macintosh blade is as good as CMAC (mac 3) blade to facilitate DLT intubation in adult patients with no anticipated airway difficulty, however CMAC was superior as it offers better laryngoscopic view, needed less force, and fewer external laryngeal manipulations.
RESUMO
Background and Aims: Cervical spine immobilization renders direct laryngoscopy difficult. The CMAC D blade and the channeled blade of the King Vision videolaryngoscopes, have both been used for difficult airway management. Our hypothesis is that the channeled blade of the King Vision would be superior to the CMAC D blade in terms of ease of intubation. We tested this hypothesis in a randomized comparison of the two videolaryngoscopes in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilization. Material and Methods: Hundred patients with no anticipated airway difficulty were randomly allocated to two groups after obtaining informed written consent. Following induction, manual inline stabilization (MILS) was applied to simulate a cervical spine injury and immobilzation. Patients were intubated with either of the two videolaryngoscopes. Time for visualization of the glottis, procedural time, intubation difficulty scale (IDS), and hemodynamic response were recorded. Results: The time to visualize the glottis was shorter in the CMAC D group as compared to the King Vision group (P < 0.001). The incidence of external laryngeal manipulation was less in the King Vision group (P < 0.001). The ease of intubation was superior in the King Vision group, based on the IDS (P < 0.001). The haemodynamic response was similar between the groups. Conclusion: King Vision channeled videolaryngoscope was difficult to introduce into the mouth of the patient during laryngoscopy. Once introduced into the mouth, the time for intubation was less and less external laryngeal manipulation maneuvers were performed to achieve successful intubation. The ease of endotracheal intubation was superior for the King Vision videolaryngoscope. The King Vision videolaryngoscope with proper tranining, could be a safe and portable alternative in patients with cervical spine immobilization.
