Randomized, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group Clinical Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of FKScope® for Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients Scheduled for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Under General Anesthesia.

Yu-Chi Huang, Shu-Yu Ou, Yu-Ting Kuo, Yuan-Yi Chia
{"title":"Randomized, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group Clinical Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of FKScope® for Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients Scheduled for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Under General Anesthesia.","authors":"Yu-Chi Huang,&nbsp;Shu-Yu Ou,&nbsp;Yu-Ting Kuo,&nbsp;Yuan-Yi Chia","doi":"10.6859/aja.202112_59(4).0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most of the reports showed that videolaryngoscopy has better outcomes than direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. The FKScope® comprises a semirigid and malleable stylet with a terminal camera and has been used to facilitate orotracheal intubation. However, its efficacy and safety for nasotracheal intubation remain unknown. This study compared FKScope® with Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-four patients scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation were enrolled and randomly assigned to FKScope® (n = 32) or Macintosh group (n = 32). The primary outcome was time to successful intubation during the first attempt. Secondary outcomes included modified nasal intubation difficulty scale (MNIDS) scores; percentage of glottic opening (POGO); immediate postintubation side effects such as mucosal bleeding, dental injury, and lip lacerations; and postoperative side effects including nasal pain, sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia, and dyspnea.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rates of successful first-attempt intubation were 87.5% and 90.6% in the FKScope® and Macintosh group, respectively (P = 0.69). Mean (± standard deviation) total intubation time was 68.7 ± 34.8 s in the FKScope® group compared with 61.5 ± 21.9 s in the Macintosh group (P = 0.35), despite a higher POGO for the FKScope® group (77 ± 27 vs. 41 ± 31, P < 0.01). The MNIDS scores of the FKScope® group were significantly lower (0.8 ± 1.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.4, P < 0.01). The groups did not differ significantly regarding most postoperative side effects, although the FKScope® group had fewer lip lacerations (P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of FKScope® improves the view of the glottic opening and is safe for nasotracheal intubation with normal airways. However, secretions and blood can obstruct the camera, and therefore, to select the patient carefully is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"59 4","pages":"152-160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202112_59(4).0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most of the reports showed that videolaryngoscopy has better outcomes than direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. The FKScope® comprises a semirigid and malleable stylet with a terminal camera and has been used to facilitate orotracheal intubation. However, its efficacy and safety for nasotracheal intubation remain unknown. This study compared FKScope® with Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.

Methods: Sixty-four patients scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation were enrolled and randomly assigned to FKScope® (n = 32) or Macintosh group (n = 32). The primary outcome was time to successful intubation during the first attempt. Secondary outcomes included modified nasal intubation difficulty scale (MNIDS) scores; percentage of glottic opening (POGO); immediate postintubation side effects such as mucosal bleeding, dental injury, and lip lacerations; and postoperative side effects including nasal pain, sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia, and dyspnea.

Results: The rates of successful first-attempt intubation were 87.5% and 90.6% in the FKScope® and Macintosh group, respectively (P = 0.69). Mean (± standard deviation) total intubation time was 68.7 ± 34.8 s in the FKScope® group compared with 61.5 ± 21.9 s in the Macintosh group (P = 0.35), despite a higher POGO for the FKScope® group (77 ± 27 vs. 41 ± 31, P < 0.01). The MNIDS scores of the FKScope® group were significantly lower (0.8 ± 1.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.4, P < 0.01). The groups did not differ significantly regarding most postoperative side effects, although the FKScope® group had fewer lip lacerations (P = 0.04).

Conclusions: The use of FKScope® improves the view of the glottic opening and is safe for nasotracheal intubation with normal airways. However, secretions and blood can obstruct the camera, and therefore, to select the patient carefully is necessary.

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
随机、主动对照、平行组临床研究评估FKScope®用于口腔颌面外科全麻患者鼻气管插管的有效性和安全性。
背景:大多数报道表明,在鼻气管插管中,视频喉镜检查的效果优于直接喉镜检查。FKScope®包括带有终端摄像头的半刚性和可延展性样式,并已用于促进口气管插管。然而,其用于鼻气管插管的有效性和安全性尚不清楚。本研究比较了FKScope®与Macintosh直接喉镜用于鼻气管插管。方法:纳入64例需要鼻气管插管的口腔颌面外科患者,随机分为FKScope®组(n = 32)和Macintosh组(n = 32)。主要结果是第一次插管成功的时间。次要结局包括改良鼻插管困难量表(MNIDS)评分;声门开口百分率(POGO);插管后立即出现的副作用,如粘膜出血、牙齿损伤和唇裂伤;术后的副作用包括鼻痛,喉咙痛,声音嘶哑,吞咽困难和呼吸困难。结果:FKScope®组和Macintosh组首次插管成功率分别为87.5%和90.6% (P = 0.69)。FKScope®组的平均(±标准差)总插管时间为68.7±34.8 s,而Macintosh组为61.5±21.9 s (P = 0.35),尽管FKScope®组的POGO更高(77±27比41±31,P < 0.01)。FKScope®组mids评分显著低于对照组(0.8±1.0比2.8±1.4,P < 0.01)。尽管FKScope®组唇部撕裂较少(P = 0.04),但两组在大多数术后副作用方面没有显著差异。结论:使用FKScope®改善了声门开口的视野,对于正常气道的鼻气管插管是安全的。然而,分泌物和血液会阻碍相机,因此,仔细选择患者是必要的。
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
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
期刊最新文献
Risk of Dementia After Uterus or Prostate Resection: 17-Year Follow-Up of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. Comparison of Inter-Incisor Distance as a Predictor of Difficult Intubation in Men and Women-A Prospective Observational Study. Deteriorating Hypotension and Trepopnea During Left Lateral Decubitus Position Before Spinal Anesthesia. Practice Algorithm of Rotational Thromboelastometry-Guided (ROTEM-Guided) Bleeding Management in Liver Transplantation. Hypovolemic Shock and Changes in Density Spectral Array of BIS During Hepatectomy.
×
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