Lord S A, Boswell W C, Williams J S, Odom J W, Boyd C R
Department of Surgical Education, Memorial Medical Center, Savannah, Georgia 31403-3089, USA.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 1994 Jan-Mar;9(1):44-9. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00040838.
Proper airway control in trauma patients who have sustained cervical spine fracture remains controversial.
This study was undertaken to survey the preferred methods of airway management in cervical spine fracture (CSF) patients, to evaluate the experience of handling such patients at a level-I trauma center, and to contrast the findings with recommendations of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma.
The methods used for control of the airway in patients with fractures of their cervical spine support the recommendation of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma.
The study consisted of two parts: 1) a survey; and 2) a retrospective study. Survey questionnaires were sent to 199 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and to 161 anesthesiology training programs throughout the United States. Three resuscitation scenarios were posed: 1) Elective airway--CSF--breathing spontaneously, stable vital signs; 2) Urgent airway--CSF--breathing spontaneously, unstable vital signs; and 3) Emergent airway--CSF--apneic, unstable. In addition, a three-year retrospective study was conducted at a level-I trauma center to determine the method of airway control in patients with cervical spine fractures.
Responses to the questionnaires were received from 101 trauma surgeons (TS) and 58 anesthesiologists (ANESTH). Respondents indicated their preference of airway methods: Elective airway: Nasotracheal intubation: TS 69%, ANESTH 53%. Orotracheal intubation: TS and ANESTH 27%. Surgical airway: TS 4%. Intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB): ANESTH 20%. Urgent airway: Nasotracheal intubation: TS 48%, ANESTH 38%. Orotracheal intubation: TS 47%, ANESTH 45%. Surgical airway: TS 4%. FOB: ANESTH 16%. Emergent airway: Orotracheal intubation: TS 81%, ANESTH 78%. Surgical Airway: TS 19%, ANESTH 7%. FOB: ANESTH 15%. The retrospective review at the trauma center indicated that 102 patients with CSF were admitted; 62 required intubation: four (6%) on the scene, seven (11%) en route, five (8%) in the emergency department, 42 (67%) in the operating room, and four (6%) on the general surgery floor. Airway control methods used were nasotracheal: 14 (22%); orotracheal: 27 (43%); FOB: 17 (27%); tracheostomy: one (2%); unknown: three (4%). No progression of the neurological status resulted from intubation.
The choice of airway control in the trauma patient with CSF differs between anesthesiologists and surgeons. However, the method selected does not have an adverse affect on neurological status as long as in-line stabilization is maintained. The methods available are safe, effective, and acceptable. The recommendations of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma for airway control with suspected cervical spine injury are useful. The technique utilized is dependent upon the judgment and experience of the intubator.
对于颈椎骨折的创伤患者,恰当的气道控制仍存在争议。
本研究旨在调查颈椎骨折(CSF)患者气道管理的首选方法,评估在一级创伤中心处理此类患者的经验,并将结果与美国外科医师学会创伤委员会的建议进行对比。
用于颈椎骨折患者气道控制的方法符合美国外科医师学会(ACS)创伤委员会的建议。
本研究包括两部分:1)一项调查;2)一项回顾性研究。调查问卷被发送给美国东部创伤外科学会的199名成员以及全美的161个麻醉学培训项目。提出了三种复苏场景:1)择期气道——CSF——自主呼吸,生命体征稳定;2)紧急气道——CSF——自主呼吸,生命体征不稳定;3)急诊气道——CSF——无呼吸,生命体征不稳定。此外,在一级创伤中心进行了一项为期三年的回顾性研究,以确定颈椎骨折患者的气道控制方法。
收到了101名创伤外科医生(TS)和58名麻醉医生(ANESTH)对问卷的回复。受访者表明了他们对气道方法的偏好:择期气道:经鼻气管插管:TS占69%,ANESTH占53%。经口气管插管:TS和ANESTH均占27%。手术气道:TS占4%。纤维支气管镜(FOB)插管:ANESTH占20%。紧急气道:经鼻气管插管:TS占48%,ANESTH占38%。经口气管插管:TS占47%,ANESTH占45%。手术气道:TS占4%。FOB:ANESTH占16%。急诊气道:经口气管插管:TS占81%,ANESTH占78%。手术气道:TS占19%,ANESTH占7%。FOB:ANESTH占15%。创伤中心的回顾性分析表明,102例CSF患者入院;62例需要插管:4例(6%)在现场,7例(11%)在途中,5例(8%)在急诊科,42例(67%)在手术室,4例(6%)在普通外科病房。使用的气道控制方法为经鼻气管插管:14例(22%);经口气管插管:27例(43%);FOB:17例(27%);气管切开术:1例(2%);情况不明:3例(4%)。插管未导致神经状态恶化。
麻醉医生和外科医生在颈椎骨折创伤患者的气道控制选择上存在差异。然而,只要保持轴向稳定,所选方法对神经状态没有不利影响。可用的方法安全、有效且可接受。美国外科医师学会创伤委员会关于疑似颈椎损伤气道控制的建议是有用的。所采用的技术取决于插管者的判断和经验。