Mahmoud Ahmed Abdelaal Ahmed, Fouad Ahmed Zaghloul, Mansour Mohamed Ahmed, Kamal Ahmed Mostafa
Department of Anesthesiology, Beni Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2013 Apr;23(4):349-54. doi: 10.1111/pan.12080. Epub 2012 Nov 28.
Cleft palate anesthesia is challenging due to difficult airway. Left paraglossal intubation moves resting point of laryngoscope laterally but associated with narrower laryngoscopic view and possible trauma, and we invented the use of hard gum shield as a bridge over defective palate to facilitate intubation with possible wider window and defective tissue protection.
Eighty bilateral cleft palate children, ASA physical status I-II aged 9 months to 6 years scheduled for plastic surgery had general anesthesia, were involved in prospective, controlled, randomized study, and were randomly divided by closed envelope method into two groups: group I (40 patients): intubated by hard gum shield-aided intubation and group II (40 patients): intubated by left paraglossal intubation. Both techniques compared as regards (i) intubation time; (ii) Cormack and Lehane score; (iii) need for external laryngeal manipulation; (iv) easiness of intubation: easy, modest, or difficult intubation; and (v) complications: desaturation and failed intubation.
Intubation time was shorter in group I (28.47 ± 3.78 vs. 37.63 ± 6.64 s, P = 0.001). Cormack and Lehane score was better in group I (P = 0.003). Need for external laryngeal manipulation was less in group I (P = 0.015). Easiness of intubation was better in group I (P = 0.022). No difference was found in complications between groups.
Hard gum shield-aided intubation facilitated intubation more than left paraglossal in bilateral cleft palate children with shorter intubation time, better glottic view, easier intubation, less need for laryngeal manipulation than left paraglossal intubation with no difference in complications.
由于气道困难,腭裂麻醉具有挑战性。左侧舌旁插管可将喉镜的支撑点向外移动,但会导致喉镜视野变窄并可能造成创伤。我们发明了使用硬腭护板作为覆盖腭裂的桥梁,以利于插管,可能会有更宽的视野并保护缺损组织。
80例计划行整形手术的双侧腭裂患儿,年龄9个月至6岁,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分级为I-II级,接受全身麻醉,参与前瞻性、对照、随机研究,并通过封闭信封法随机分为两组:第一组(40例患者):采用硬腭护板辅助插管;第二组(40例患者):采用左侧舌旁插管。比较两种技术在以下方面的情况:(i)插管时间;(ii)Cormack和Lehane评分;(iii)是否需要外部喉部操作;(iv)插管难易程度:容易、中等或困难插管;(v)并发症:血氧饱和度下降和插管失败。
第一组的插管时间更短(28.47±3.78秒对37.63±6.64秒,P = 0.001)。第一组的Cormack和Lehane评分更好(P = 0.003)。第一组需要外部喉部操作的情况更少(P = 0.015)。第一组的插管难易程度更好(P = 0.022)。两组之间并发症无差异。
在双侧腭裂患儿中,硬腭护板辅助插管比左侧舌旁插管更有利于插管,插管时间更短,声门视野更好,插管更容易,比左侧舌旁插管需要更少的喉部操作,且并发症无差异。