Cargando…

A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation

Background Awake intubation is used most commonly in patients with a predicted difficult airway. There are situations where the safest method to secure an airway is to place an endotracheal tube in an awake and spontaneously breathing patient. Our aim was to compare the two modalities, airway nerve b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yadav, Urvashi, Kumar, Atit, Gupta, Priya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34295582
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15772
_version_ 1783724580446142464
author Yadav, Urvashi
Kumar, Atit
Gupta, Priya
author_facet Yadav, Urvashi
Kumar, Atit
Gupta, Priya
author_sort Yadav, Urvashi
collection PubMed
description Background Awake intubation is used most commonly in patients with a predicted difficult airway. There are situations where the safest method to secure an airway is to place an endotracheal tube in an awake and spontaneously breathing patient. Our aim was to compare the two modalities, airway nerve blocks and atomized lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic)airway for awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Methods A total of 50 patients with anticipated difficult airway requiring AFOI were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received airway blocks (bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal nerve) each with 2 ml of 2% lidocaine and group B received airway anesthesia through atomized lidocaine by LMA MADgic using 10 ml of 2% lidocaine. Fiberoptic guided orotracheal intubation was then performed in both the groups using LMA MADgic as the conduit. The primary outcome measured was intubation time and the secondary outcome included quality of intubation, hemodynamic variables, and any adverse events. Results The intubation time was found to be significantly lower in Group A (63.80±7.86 seconds) as compared to Group B (184.96±13.38 seconds) (p=0.0001). The ease of intubation, intubating condition, and patient comfort were better in patients who received airway blocks. Group B had an increased number of coughing/gagging episodes as compared with Group A. Between the two groups, group A showed better hemodynamics and fewer episodes of desaturation than group B. Conclusion Upper airway nerve blocks provide faster intubation, adequate airway anesthesia, and less patient discomfort to aid in AFOI in patients with anticipated difficult airway as compared to topical anesthesia using an atomizer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8291090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82910902021-07-21 A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Yadav, Urvashi Kumar, Atit Gupta, Priya Cureus Anesthesiology Background Awake intubation is used most commonly in patients with a predicted difficult airway. There are situations where the safest method to secure an airway is to place an endotracheal tube in an awake and spontaneously breathing patient. Our aim was to compare the two modalities, airway nerve blocks and atomized lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic)airway for awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Methods A total of 50 patients with anticipated difficult airway requiring AFOI were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received airway blocks (bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal nerve) each with 2 ml of 2% lidocaine and group B received airway anesthesia through atomized lidocaine by LMA MADgic using 10 ml of 2% lidocaine. Fiberoptic guided orotracheal intubation was then performed in both the groups using LMA MADgic as the conduit. The primary outcome measured was intubation time and the secondary outcome included quality of intubation, hemodynamic variables, and any adverse events. Results The intubation time was found to be significantly lower in Group A (63.80±7.86 seconds) as compared to Group B (184.96±13.38 seconds) (p=0.0001). The ease of intubation, intubating condition, and patient comfort were better in patients who received airway blocks. Group B had an increased number of coughing/gagging episodes as compared with Group A. Between the two groups, group A showed better hemodynamics and fewer episodes of desaturation than group B. Conclusion Upper airway nerve blocks provide faster intubation, adequate airway anesthesia, and less patient discomfort to aid in AFOI in patients with anticipated difficult airway as compared to topical anesthesia using an atomizer. Cureus 2021-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8291090/ /pubmed/34295582 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15772 Text en Copyright © 2021, Yadav et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Anesthesiology
Yadav, Urvashi
Kumar, Atit
Gupta, Priya
A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title_full A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title_fullStr A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title_short A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation
title_sort comparative study of airway nerve blocks and atomized lidocaine by the laryngo-tracheal mucosal atomization device (lma madgic) airway for oral awake fiberoptic intubation
topic Anesthesiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34295582
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15772
work_keys_str_mv AT yadavurvashi acomparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation
AT kumaratit acomparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation
AT guptapriya acomparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation
AT yadavurvashi comparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation
AT kumaratit comparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation
AT guptapriya comparativestudyofairwaynerveblocksandatomizedlidocainebythelaryngotrachealmucosalatomizationdevicelmamadgicairwayfororalawakefiberopticintubation