Comparing the intubation effectiveness of two different laryngoscopes in patients with cerebral palsy
Abstract
Objective: In patients with expected airway difficulties,
specific preparatory and auxiliary equipment is required before general
anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the intubation efficacy of
Macintosh laryngoscope with that of the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope in
patients with cerebral palsy.
Materials
and Methods: The study
was conducted in forty patients (aged 4-15) with cerebral palsy who were
scheduled to undergo dental treatment. Intubations were performed in patients
randomly assigned to the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope or the Macintosh
laryngoscope. The characteristics of the patients, mean arterial blood
pressure, heart rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide, and peripheral oxygen
saturation were measured. The intubation success, intubation time, Cormack and
Lehane grades, number of trials, need for neck extension, and complications
were recorded.
Results: When both groups were compared in terms of the
glottic view, intubation time, and need for neck extension, there was no
significant difference (p = 0.542, p = 0.779, and p = 1.000, respectively). All the intubations were performed
successfully at the first attempt in both groups, and no complications were
recorded.
Conclusion: Although our study included patients with cerebral
palsy, in which musculoskeletal anomalies are common, sufficient muscle
relaxation for intubation after general anesthesia was achieved in all the
patients. There was no evidence of intubation difficulty
in either group of patients, and cerebral palsy, with its existing deformities,
did not affect the intubation success or complication rate. No additional
advantages of using video laryngoscopy in patients with cerebral palsy were
found.
References
- 1. Dodge NN. Cerebral palsy: medical aspects. Pediatr Clin North Am 2008; 55:1189-1207.
- 2. Mc Donald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry fort the Child and Adolescent Saint Louis, Washington, D.C. Toronto, The C:V:Mosby Company 1988,s: 207-9,345-365.
- 3. Nolan J, Chalkiadis GA, Low J, Olesch CA, Brown TC. Anaesthesia and pain management in cerebral palsy. Anaesthesia 2000; 55:32-41.
- 4. Richards CL, Malouin F. Cerebral palsy: definition, assessment and rehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol 2013; 111:183-195.
- 5. Lerman J. Perioperative management of the paediatric patient with coexisting neuromuscular disease. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107:79-89.
- 6. Cook TM, MacDougall-Davis SR. Complications and failure of airway management. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109:68-85.
- 7. Wass CT, Warner ME, Worrell GA, et al. Effect of general anesthesia in patients with cerebral palsy at the turn of the new millennium: a population-based study evaluating perioperative outcome and brief overview of anesthetic implications of this coexisting disease. J Child Neurol 2012; 27:859-866.
- 8. Ilyas S, Symons J, Bradley WP, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing tracheal intubation plus manual in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine using the Macintoshlaryngoscope vs the McGrath(®) Series 5 videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2014; 69:1345-1350.
- 9. Saricicek V, Mizrak A, Gul R, Goksu S, Cesur M. GlideScope video laryngoscopy use tracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a series of four cases and literature review. J Clin Monit Comput 2014; 28:169-172.
- 10. Pournajafian AR, Ghodraty MR, Faiz SH, Rahimzadeh P, Goodarzynejad H, Dogmehchi E. Comparing GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope Regarding Hemodynamic Responses During Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16:e12334.
- 11. Vassiliadis J, Tzannes A, Hitos K, Brimble J, Fogg T. Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2015; 27:119-125.
- 12. Aktas S, Atalay YO, Tugrul M. Predictive value of bedside tests for difficult intubations. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19:1595-1599.
- 13. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984; 39:1105-1111.
- 14. Brück S, Trautner H, Wolff A, et al. Comparison of the C-MAC(®) and GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine disorders and immobilisation. Anaesthesia 2015; 70:160-165.
- 15. Liu L, Yue H, Li J. Comparison of three tracheal intubation techniques in thyroid tumor patients with a difficult airway: a randomized controlled trial. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23:448-452.
- 16. Schälte G, Rex S, Henzler D. [Airway management]. Anaesthesist 2007; 56:837-855.
- 17. Lin WQ, Quan SB, Liu WJ, et al. Evaluation of the CEL-100 videolaryngoscope(TM) for double-lumen tracheal tube insertion after failure using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2012; 67:1232-1236.
- 18. Albright AL, Pollack IF, Adelson PD: Principles and Practice of Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2nd edn. New York: Thieme, 2008.
- 19. Torri G. Inhalation anesthetics: a review. Minerva Anestesiol 2010; 76: 215-228.
- 20. Kilicaslan A, Topal A, Tavlan A, Erol A, Otelcioglu S. Effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in the management of unexpected failed intubations. Braz J Anesthesiol 2014; 64:62-65.
- 21. Sun Y, Lu Y, Huang Y, Jiang H. Pediatric video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24:1056-1065.
Abstract
References
- 1. Dodge NN. Cerebral palsy: medical aspects. Pediatr Clin North Am 2008; 55:1189-1207.
- 2. Mc Donald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry fort the Child and Adolescent Saint Louis, Washington, D.C. Toronto, The C:V:Mosby Company 1988,s: 207-9,345-365.
- 3. Nolan J, Chalkiadis GA, Low J, Olesch CA, Brown TC. Anaesthesia and pain management in cerebral palsy. Anaesthesia 2000; 55:32-41.
- 4. Richards CL, Malouin F. Cerebral palsy: definition, assessment and rehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol 2013; 111:183-195.
- 5. Lerman J. Perioperative management of the paediatric patient with coexisting neuromuscular disease. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107:79-89.
- 6. Cook TM, MacDougall-Davis SR. Complications and failure of airway management. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109:68-85.
- 7. Wass CT, Warner ME, Worrell GA, et al. Effect of general anesthesia in patients with cerebral palsy at the turn of the new millennium: a population-based study evaluating perioperative outcome and brief overview of anesthetic implications of this coexisting disease. J Child Neurol 2012; 27:859-866.
- 8. Ilyas S, Symons J, Bradley WP, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing tracheal intubation plus manual in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine using the Macintoshlaryngoscope vs the McGrath(®) Series 5 videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2014; 69:1345-1350.
- 9. Saricicek V, Mizrak A, Gul R, Goksu S, Cesur M. GlideScope video laryngoscopy use tracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a series of four cases and literature review. J Clin Monit Comput 2014; 28:169-172.
- 10. Pournajafian AR, Ghodraty MR, Faiz SH, Rahimzadeh P, Goodarzynejad H, Dogmehchi E. Comparing GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope Regarding Hemodynamic Responses During Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16:e12334.
- 11. Vassiliadis J, Tzannes A, Hitos K, Brimble J, Fogg T. Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2015; 27:119-125.
- 12. Aktas S, Atalay YO, Tugrul M. Predictive value of bedside tests for difficult intubations. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19:1595-1599.
- 13. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984; 39:1105-1111.
- 14. Brück S, Trautner H, Wolff A, et al. Comparison of the C-MAC(®) and GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine disorders and immobilisation. Anaesthesia 2015; 70:160-165.
- 15. Liu L, Yue H, Li J. Comparison of three tracheal intubation techniques in thyroid tumor patients with a difficult airway: a randomized controlled trial. Med Princ Pract 2014; 23:448-452.
- 16. Schälte G, Rex S, Henzler D. [Airway management]. Anaesthesist 2007; 56:837-855.
- 17. Lin WQ, Quan SB, Liu WJ, et al. Evaluation of the CEL-100 videolaryngoscope(TM) for double-lumen tracheal tube insertion after failure using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2012; 67:1232-1236.
- 18. Albright AL, Pollack IF, Adelson PD: Principles and Practice of Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2nd edn. New York: Thieme, 2008.
- 19. Torri G. Inhalation anesthetics: a review. Minerva Anestesiol 2010; 76: 215-228.
- 20. Kilicaslan A, Topal A, Tavlan A, Erol A, Otelcioglu S. Effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in the management of unexpected failed intubations. Braz J Anesthesiol 2014; 64:62-65.
- 21. Sun Y, Lu Y, Huang Y, Jiang H. Pediatric video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24:1056-1065.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | July 20, 2018 |
| Submission Date | February 20, 2018 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2018Volume: 21 Issue: 2 |
Cited By
Safety of anesthesia in outpatient conditions in patients with cerebral palsy. What is new?
Anesteziologiya i Reanimatologiya
N. D. Daniyalova
https://doi.org/10.17116/anaesthesiology201906181
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.