Left-molar approach for direct laryngoscopy: is it easy?

PURPOSE: For direct laryngoscopy, we compared midline and left-molar approaches with respect to ease of intubation, using a Macintosh blade. We investigated the relationship between failure of the left-molar approach and preoperative risk factors for difficult intubation. METHODS: With local ethics committee approval, 200 consecutive adult, nonpregnant patients were included in the study. The demographic data, body mass index, Mallampati modified score, interincisor gap, and mentohyoid and thyromental distances were measured preoperatively. First, the Macintosh blade was inserted using the midline approach, and then optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM) was applied. Second, the blade was inserted using the left-molar approach. The glottic views were assessed according to the Cormack-Lehane classification before and after OELM in both approaches. In cases where tracheal intubation failed with the left-molar approach, the midline approach was applied again and endotracheal intubation took place. RESULTS: The grade I glottic view obtained using the midline approach without OELM did not change in 94.3% of the patients with the left-molar approach without OELM; in addition, the grade II glottic view improved to grade I in 52.8% of the patients with the same technique (P < 0.001). Although the number of patients with a grade I or II glottic view in the left-molar approach was 197, only 37 patients could be intubated using the left-molar approach. In addition, 59.5% of them were intubated at the second attempt with the left-molar approach, while the incidence of a second attempt was 1.2% with the midline approach (P < 0.001). There was no correlation between the preoperative risk factors for difficult intubation and failure of the left-molar approach. CONCLUSION: Difficulty in the insertion of the endotracheal tube limits the efficacy of the left-molar approach. It is not possible to predict the failure of intubation with the left-molar approach by considering the preoperative risk factors.

Intravenous paracetamol improves the quality of postoperative analgesia but does not decrease narcotic requirements.

Paracetamol, a centrally acting inhibitor of cyclooxygenase, has less gastrointestinal and platelet-inhibiting side effects and is clinically better tolerated than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Therefore, it will be ideally suited for postoperative pain relief. In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the analgesic efficacy, opioid-sparing effect and effects on opioid-related adverse effects of intravenous (IV) paracetamol in combination with IV morphine after lumbar laminectomy and discectomy. Forty patients were divided into 2 groups (n=20 each) to receive either paracetamol 1 g (group 1) or 0.9% NaCl 100 ml (group 2) at the end of the operation and at 6-hour intervals over 24 hours. IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine was used as a rescue analgesic in both groups. Pain was evaluated at rest and on movement at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, and 24th hours using a visual analog scale. Hemodynamic parameters, morphine usage, patient satisfaction, and probable side effects were also evaluated. Pain scores at rest and on movement at the 12th, 18th, and 24th hours were significantly lower in group 1 (P<0.001). Morphine consumption was not statistically significantly different between the groups (P>0.05). Vomiting in group 2 was significantly higher (P=0.027). Significantly more patients in the paracetamol group rated their pain management as excellent (45% vs. 5%). Although repeated IV paracetamol usage after lumbar laminectomy and discectomy did not demonstrate a significant opioid-sparing effect, it did decrease visual analog scale scores at certain evaluation times and incidence of vomiting and increase patient satisfaction.