Anaesthesia for Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: Ultrasound-Guided Airway Nerve Block versus Ultrasonic Nebulisation with Lignocaine.

Jharana Mohanta, Ajit Kumar, Ashutosh Kaushal, Praveen Talawar, Priyanka Gupta, Gaurav Jain
{"title":"Anaesthesia for Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: Ultrasound-Guided Airway Nerve Block versus Ultrasonic Nebulisation with Lignocaine.","authors":"Jharana Mohanta, Ajit Kumar, Ashutosh Kaushal, Praveen Talawar, Priyanka Gupta, Gaurav Jain","doi":"10.15190/d.2021.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In anticipated difficult airway, awake fiberoptic guided intubation should be the ideal plan of management. It requires sufficient upper airway anesthesia for patient’s comfort and cooperation. We compared the efficacy of ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks and ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine for airway anesthesia before performing awake fibreoptic guided intubation. Methods: This prospective, randomised study included sixty consenting adult patients of both genders (American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 1–3) with anticipated difficult airway undergoing surgery. Ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks group received ultrasound-guided bilateral superior laryngeal (1 ml of 2% lignocaine) and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal (2 ml of 2% lignocaine) airway nerve blocks and ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine group received ultrasonic nebulisation of 4 ml of lignocaine 4%. The primary outcome was to compare the time required to intubate, whereas the secondary outcomes were to compare cough reflex and gag reflex, hemodynamic changes, number of attempts required, and comfort score during awake fibreoptic guided intubation in both the groups. Results: The time taken for intubation was significantly lower in the ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks group 69.27±21.85 s than ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine group 92.43 ± 42.90 s (p = 0.015). Hemodynamic variables changed during the procedure but the values were comparable in both groups. There were no statistical differences in cough and gag reflexes, number of attempts, and comfort score in both groups. Conclusions: This study shows that significant lesser time required for performing awake fiberoptic intubation when patient received ultrasound guided airway nerve block in comparison to ultrasonic nebulisation for airway anaesthesia.","PeriodicalId":72829,"journal":{"name":"Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)","volume":"9 1","pages":"e125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8140785/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15190/d.2021.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: In anticipated difficult airway, awake fiberoptic guided intubation should be the ideal plan of management. It requires sufficient upper airway anesthesia for patient’s comfort and cooperation. We compared the efficacy of ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks and ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine for airway anesthesia before performing awake fibreoptic guided intubation. Methods: This prospective, randomised study included sixty consenting adult patients of both genders (American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 1–3) with anticipated difficult airway undergoing surgery. Ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks group received ultrasound-guided bilateral superior laryngeal (1 ml of 2% lignocaine) and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal (2 ml of 2% lignocaine) airway nerve blocks and ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine group received ultrasonic nebulisation of 4 ml of lignocaine 4%. The primary outcome was to compare the time required to intubate, whereas the secondary outcomes were to compare cough reflex and gag reflex, hemodynamic changes, number of attempts required, and comfort score during awake fibreoptic guided intubation in both the groups. Results: The time taken for intubation was significantly lower in the ultrasound guided airway nerve blocks group 69.27±21.85 s than ultrasonic nebulisation with lignocaine group 92.43 ± 42.90 s (p = 0.015). Hemodynamic variables changed during the procedure but the values were comparable in both groups. There were no statistical differences in cough and gag reflexes, number of attempts, and comfort score in both groups. Conclusions: This study shows that significant lesser time required for performing awake fiberoptic intubation when patient received ultrasound guided airway nerve block in comparison to ultrasonic nebulisation for airway anaesthesia.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
清醒纤维插管的麻醉:超声引导的气道神经阻滞与利多卡因超声雾化。
背景:在预期气道困难的情况下,清醒纤维引导插管是理想的治疗方案。需要充足的上呼吸道麻醉,以保证患者的舒适和配合。我们比较了超声引导下气道神经阻滞和超声雾化加利多卡因气道麻醉在清醒纤维引导插管前的疗效。方法:这项前瞻性随机研究包括60名同意接受手术气道困难的成年患者(美国麻醉医师协会生理状态1-3)。超声引导下气管神经阻滞组行双侧上喉(2%利多卡因1ml)和经气管返喉(2%利多卡因2ml)气管神经阻滞和超声雾化,利多卡因组行4%利多卡因4ml超声雾化。主要结果是比较插管所需的时间,而次要结果是比较两组清醒纤维引导插管时咳嗽反射和呕吐反射、血流动力学变化、所需尝试次数和舒适度评分。结果:超声引导下气道神经阻滞组插管时间(69.27±21.85 s)明显低于超声雾化加利多卡因组(92.43±42.90 s) (p = 0.015)。血流动力学变量在手术过程中发生了变化,但两组的数值具有可比性。两组在咳嗽和呕吐反射、尝试次数和舒适评分方面无统计学差异。结论:本研究表明,与超声雾化气道麻醉相比,超声引导气道神经阻滞患者在清醒状态下进行纤维插管所需的时间明显更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Dementia on Patients with Hip Fracture. Atrial Bigeminy, a Potential Diagnostic Clue for Glioblastoma. Mammary Myofibroblastoma - An Elusive Cause of Breast Lump. Roles of molecular neuroimaging techniques in Parkinsonism. Role of C-reactive protein in disease progression, diagnosis and management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1