Pak J Med Sci. 2016 Jan-Feb;32(1):185-90. doi: 10.12669/pjms.321.8956.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Airway safety may be provided with endotracheal intubation especially for oral procedures because of some potential risks such as aspiration of secretion or foreign bodies. In this study, we aimed to determine whether placing a pillow under the occiput may facilitate endotracheal intubation in non-cooperative children whose extensive dental treatments were planned to take place under general anesthesia. METHODS: The study was performed in Erciyes University, Faculty of Dentistry between March-July 2014. A total 150 ASA I-II children, between 3-9 years were included in this study. Pillow was folded under the occiput in Group 1 (n=75), patients lay on a flat surface in Group 2 (n=75) during theanesthesia induction and intubation period. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the demographic data (age, weight, gender) (p>0.05). Operation times were similar in both groups (p=0.329). The number of intubation attempts was smilar in both groups (p=0.412). The intubation time was longer in group one than in group two (p= 0.025). CONCLUSION: We concluded that, placing a pillow under the patients occiput provided longer intubation time without changing the number of attempts in the normal airway in non-cooperative children whose extensive dental treatments were planned to take place under general anesthesia.
Comparación del larincoscopio Miller y Airtraq para intubación orotraqueal por médicos vestidos con CBRN (equipo para protección nuclear, radiológica, biológica y química) durante durante resucitación pediátrica
Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study.
BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. We hypothesized that in this situation, the orotracheal intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope would be faster and more effective than with the Miller laryngoscope. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center study who recruited emergency department physicians on a voluntary basis. Each physician performed a total of 20 intubation trials while in CBRN-PPE with the two intubation techniques, Miller and Airtraq. Intubations by each airway device were tested over ten consecutive runs. The order of use of one or the other devices was randomized with a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was overall orotracheal intubation success. RESULTS: Fifty-five emergency and pediatric physicians were assessed for eligibility. Forty-one physicians were included in this study and 820 orotracheal intubation attempts were performed. The orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller (99 % vs. 92 %; p-adjusted <.001). The orotracheal intubation and glottis visualization times decreased with the number of attempts (p <.001). The median orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope (15 s vs. 20 s; p-adjusted <.001). The median glottis visualization time with the Airtraq laryngoscope and with the Miller laryngoscope were not different (6.0 s vs. 7.5 s; p-adjusted =.237). Thirty-four (83 %) physicians preferred the Airtraq laryngoscope versus 6 (15 %) for the Miller (p-adjusted <.001). DISCUSSION: For tracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN-PPE during infant resuscitation simulation, we showed that the orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller laryngoscope and that orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope. CONCLUSIONS: It seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks.
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:368761. doi: 10.1155/2015/368761. Epub 2015 Nov 22.
Pediatric airway management is a challenge in routine anesthesia practice. Any airway-related complication due to improper procedure can have catastrophic consequences in pediatric patients. The authors reviewed the current relevant literature using the following data bases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Medline (OVID SP), and Dynamed, and the following keywords: Airway/s, Children, Pediatric, Difficult Airways, and Controversies. From a summary of the data, we identified several controversies: difficult airway prediction, difficult airway management, cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for securing pediatric airways, rapid sequence induction (RSI), laryngeal mask versus endotracheal tube, and extubation timing. The data show that pediatric anesthesia practice in perioperative airway management is currently lacking the strong evidence-based medicine (EBM) data that is available for adult subpopulations. A number of procedural steps in airway management are derived only from adult populations. However, the objective is the same irrespective of patient age: proper securing of the airway and oxygenation of the patient.
Almost all supraglottic airways (SGAs) are now available in pediatric sizes. The availability of these smaller sizes, especially in the last five years has brought a marked change in the whole approach to airway management in children. SGAs are now used for laparoscopic surgeries, head and neck surgeries, remote anesthesia; and for ventilation during resuscitation. A large number of reports have described the use of SGAs in difficult airway situations, either as a primary or a rescue airway. Despite this expanded usage, there remains little evidence to support its usage in prolonged surgeries and in the intensive care unit. This article presents an overview of the current options available, suitability of one over the other and reviews the published data relating to each device. In this review, the author also addresses some of the general concerns regarding the use of SGAs and explores newer roles of their use in children.