2015AnaesthesiaRequires access

Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway ®

M. C. Lee, Kuang‐Yi Tseng, Ya‐Chun Shen, C.-H. Lin, Chiung‐Dan Hsu, Hsiu-Hsuan Hsu, I‐Cheng Lu, Kuang‐I Cheng

Open publisher page 52 citations

Abstract

In patients with limited mouth opening, traditional laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopes are not useful when performing nasotracheal intubation. Eighty patients with limited mouth opening who required nasotracheal intubation were randomly assigned to either fibreoptic intubation (n = 40) or the Trachway(®) (n = 40). Using the modified nasal intubation difficulty scale, 22 (55%) patients who received fibreoptic intubation were categorised as no difficulty compared with 40 (100%) patients in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). Mean (SD) total intubation time was 71.8 (23.3) s in patients who received fibreoptic intubation compared with 35.4 (9.8) s in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). We conclude that the Trachway technique for nasotracheal intubation is quicker and easier compared with fibreoptic intubation in patients with limited mouth opening.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In patients with limited mouth opening, traditional laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopes are not useful when performing nasotracheal intubation. Eighty patients with limited mouth opening who required nasotracheal intubation were randomly assigned to either fibreoptic intubation (n = 40) or the Trachway(®) (n = 40). Using the modified nasal intubation difficulty scale, 22 (55%) patients who received fibreoptic intubation were categorised as no difficulty compared with 40 (100%) patients in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). Mean (SD) total intubation time was 71.8 (23.3) s in patients who received fibreoptic intubation compared with 35.4 (9.8) s in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). We conclude that the Trachway technique for nasotracheal intubation is quicker and easier compared with fibreoptic intubation in patients with limited mouth opening.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 52 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In patients with limited mouth opening, traditional laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopes are not useful when performing nasotracheal intubation. Eighty patients with limited mouth opening who required nasotracheal intubation were randomly assigned to either fibreoptic intubation (n = 40) or the Trachway(®) (n = 40). Using the modified nasal intubation difficulty scale, 22 (55%) patients who received fibreoptic intubation were categorised as no difficulty compared with 40 (100%) patients in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). Mean (SD) total intubation time was 71.8 (23.3) s in patients who received fibreoptic intubation compared with 35.4 (9.8) s in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). We conclude that the Trachway technique for nasotracheal intubation is quicker and easier compared with fibreoptic intubation in patients with limited mouth opening.

Key concepts: Nasotracheal intubation, Medicine, Intubation, Laryngoscopy, Anesthesia, Tracheal intubation, Surgery

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway ® — Research Paper | ScholarLens