Search

Background and Objective: CobraPLUS and Cookgas air-Q are supraglottic airways expected to allow safe ventilation as well as reliable blind intubation. In a prospective, controlled trial, we hypothesised that quality of ventilation and success rate of blind endotracheal intubation of these new devices would be superior to the Fastrach intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA). When blind intubation failed the quality of fibrescope-guided intubation was investigated. To allow identification of those patients in whom blind intubation would be difficult, we investigated the predictive value of currently used predictors for ease of endotracheal intubation., Methods: One hundred and eighty adult patients with documented BMI, Mallampati score, Cormack-Lehane classification, interincisor gap and thyromental distance were randomised into three groups according to the device used. Ventilation conditions were rated as excellent, good or difficult. When blind intubation failed, fibrescope-guided intubation conditions were rated as well. Statistical analysis was performed by a χ-test., Results: The quality of ventilation was excellent for all devices. Three patients in the CobraPLUS group and two patients in the ILMA and the Cookgas groups needed a slight reposition. Blind intubation through the CPLA was successful in 47%, through the Cookgas in 57%, whereas the Fastrach group had a success rate of 95%. Fibreoptic intubation was possible in all but one patient. None of the registered scores and measures allowed prediction of difficult blind intubation., Conclusion: All devices appeared to be safe airways. The Fastrach ILMA proved to be a reliable facilitator for blind intubation. CobraPLUS and Cookgas air-Q allowed an easy fibrescopic intubation. Failed blind intubations could not be predicted by the used parameters.

In a prospective, randomised trial, 75 patients scheduled for routine surgery were randomly allocated to one of three groups to evaluate trauma and postoperative complications after insertion of the Combitube, tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway. Insertion of the Combitube was associated with a higher incidence of sore throat (48% vs. 16% vs. 12% [p < 0.01]) and dysphagia (68% vs. 12% vs. 8% [p < 0.01]) compared with tracheal intubation or insertion of the laryngeal mask airway, respectively. Hoarseness was significantly less common in both the Combitube and the laryngeal mask groups (both 12%) than in the tracheal tube group (44%; p < 0.01). Haematoma occurred in 36% of the Combitube group compared with 4% in both the laryngeal mask and the tracheal tube groups (p < 0.01). The higher incidence of complications should be considered when using the Combitube.

Unlabelled: In a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial, we compared the stress responses after insertion of the Combitube (CT; Kendall-Sheridan Catheter Corp., Argyle, NY), the laryngeal mask airway (LMA), or endotracheal intubation (ET). Seventy-five patients scheduled for routine urological or gynecological surgery were randomly allocated to one of three groups and were ventilated via either an ET, a LMA, or a CT. All three devices could be inserted easily and rapidly, providing adequate ventilation and oxygenation. Insertion of the CT was associated with a significant increase in mean maximal systolic arterial pressure (160+/-32 mm Hg) and diastolic arterial pressure (91+/-17 mm Hg) compared with ET (140+/-24, 78+/-11 mm Hg; P < 0.05, P < 0.01, respectively) or insertion of the LMA (115+/-33,63+/-22 mm Hg, both P < 0.001). The mean maximal epinephrine and norepinephrine plasma concentrations after insertion of the CT (37.3+/-31.1 and 279+/-139 pg/mL, respectively) were significantly higher than those after ET (35.8+/-89.8 and 195+/-58 pg/mL, respectively) or insertion of a LMA (17.3+/-13.3 and 158+/-67 pg/mL, respectively). This might be attributed to the pressure of the pharyngeal cuff of the CT on the anterior pharyngeal wall. We conclude that insertion of the CT causes a pronounced stress response and that precautions should be taken when used in patients at risk of hypertensive bleeding., Implications: In this study, we showed that the hemodynamic and catecholamine stress responses after insertion of the Combitube (Kendall-Sheridan Catheter Corp., Argyle, NY) were significantly higher compared with laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal intubation. We conclude that the increased stress response to insertion of a Combitube may represent a serious hazard to patients with cardiovascular disease.

Blind oral intubation using the Augustine Guide is helpful for intubating the trachea of patients presenting with difficult airways. This device has been modified by adding a fiberoptic scope with a built-in battery-powered light. We studied this Augustine Scope in 104 patients (Group AS) and compared the results with 96 patients managed by direct laryngoscopy (Group DL). No significant differences in Mallampati class, thyromental distance, laryngoscopic view, and patients height or weight were observed between the two groups. The Augustine Scope provided conditions for successful intubation in 102 of 104 patients (98%), compared with a 97% success rate in the group where DL was used. The three patients who failed DL were successfully intubated with AS. The mean +/- SD time needed to perform intubation was 19 +/- 10 s in Group AS and 21 +/- 13 s in Group DL (P = not significant). No traumatizing effects were observed. We conclude that the Augustine Scope is an effective and safe device for orotracheal intubation in routine and difficult airways.

Purpose: This study evaluated whether the Augustine Guide, a device enabling blind oral intubation, carries a high risk for laryngopharyngeal trauma in routine airway management., Patients and Methods: Telescopic laryngoscopic or microlaryngoscopic examinations were performed in 20 patients before and immediately after blind oral intubation, as well as 24 hours postoperatively., Results: Intubation using the Augustine Guide was successful in all but one patient. However, 18 of 20 patients showed evidence of considerable trauma to the laryngopharyngeal region. Vallecular edema, epiglottic swelling, mucosal lacerations, and vocal cord hematomas, causing a high percentage of postoperative discomfort, occurred in a very uniform pattern., Conclusions: It was concluded that blind oral intubation using the Augustine Guide should not be used in routine airway management but should only be used in special indications.

Haemodynamic and hormonal responses to tracheal intubation can be profound and associated with serious cardiovascular and cerebral side effects. The Augustine Guide, a device enabling blind oral intubation, has been introduced recently. The aim of our study was to compare the haemodynamic and hormonal stress response of this method with direct laryngoscopy. Thirty five patients (ASA 1 and 2) were randomly assigned to undergo either direct laryngoscopy (n = 17), or blind oral intubation (n = 18). Haemodynamic responses and concentrations of adrenaline, noradrenaline and prolactin were determined prior to induction, before intubation and 5 min after intubation. The median duration of intubation was 22s for direct laryngoscopy vs 46s for blind oral intubation (p < 0.05). Between the groups, no significant differences were observed for heart rate, systolic or mean arterial blood pressure. Serum levels of adrenaline decreased slightly after induction and remained unaltered after intubation in both groups. Noradrenaline (1.01 vs 0.66 nmol.l-1) and prolactin (5.2 vs 2.9 nmol.l-1) levels were significantly higher after direct laryngoscopy compared to blind oral intubation. Although blind oral intubation took significantly longer to perform than direct laryngoscopy, hormonal stress response was less pronounced. Blind oral intubation should therefore not be withheld from patients with impaired cardiovascular reserve.

The most appropriate technique for performing tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine injury is debatable. Recently, a new device enabling blind oral intubation (Augustine Guide) with the patient's head and neck in the neutral position has been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the extent of upper cervical spine movement during intubation with this device compared to direct laryngoscopy. Twelve patients (Mallampati I and II), without a cervical spine injury, were intubated using the Augustine Guide and afterwards by direct laryngoscopy. Both procedures were viewed radiographically. Extension in the upper cervical spine was determined at the point of the maximum excursion. By evaluating the joints occiput-C3 together as a functional unit, blind oral intubation caused 17 degrees (median) less extension compared to direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). The median differences observed for the individual joints were: 7 degrees in occiput-C1 (p < 0.05), 5 degrees in C1-2 (p < 0.01) and 6 degrees in C2-3 (p < 0.01) respectively. Since we assume that intubation-induced excursions of the injured spine are even higher, blind oral intubation might be a safe alternative for airway management in this special group of trauma victims.