Mahmut Durmus, Ahmet Selim Ozkan, Sedat Akbas, Erol Toy, Mukadder Sanli

Nasotracheal intubation for dental surgery: A comparison of direct laryngoscopy with McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopy

Aim: The purpose of our study was to compare the McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope (VL) with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) for the efficacy during nasotracheal intubation (NTI) in patients undergoing dental surgery. Material and Methods: In total, 70 American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status (ASA) I-II patients who underwent elective dental surgery requiring NTI were included in this study. The patients were divided to two groups based on intubation using McGrath MAC VL (n=35) and Macintosh DL (n=35). The patients were monitored via electrocardiography (ECG), noninvasive arterial pressure, and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) after they were taken to the operating room. Preoxygenation was performed with face mask for at least 3 minutes with 100 % O2. In addition, 2 mg/kg propofol and 1 µg/kg fentanyl were administered for anesthesia induction, and 0,6 mg/kg rocuronium was administered for muscular relaxation. NTI was performed 3 minutes after rocuronium injection with a nasotracheal tube. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and 50% air in oxygen. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), SpO2 and end tidal-carbon dioxide (EtCO2) were recorded at baseline; after anesthesia induction; and 1st, 2nd, 3th and 5th minutes after intubation. Cormack-Lehane and Mallampati Scores (MPS), laryngeal compression, duration of intubation, using Magill forceps, ease of intubation, and the incidence of complications due to intubation were recorded. Results: The demographic characteristics of the groups were similar. Regarding the success of the intubation, no significant difference was detected between the McGrath MAC VL group and the Macintosh DL group (p >0,05). However, when intubation times were compared, a significant difference was noted between groups (p

PDF

___

1. Irefin S, Kopyeva T. Perioperative Airway Management. In: Sikka PK, Beaman ST, Street JA (eds). Basic Clinical Anesthesia 2015:23-44.
2. Thong SY, Teoh WHL. Videolaryngoscopy and Indirect Intubating Aids in Airway Management. In: Khan ZH (ed). Airway Medical Podcasts 2014:33-70.
3. Yokose M, Mihara T, Kuwahara S, Goto T, Effect of the McGRATH MAC® Video Laryngoscope on Hemodynamic Responseduring Tracheal Intubation: A Retrospective Study, Plos One. 2016:1-8.
4. Siddiqui N, Katznelson R, Friedman Z. Heart rate/ blood pressure response and airway morbidity following tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy, GlideScope and Trachlight: a randomized control trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009;26:740-5.
5. Singh S, Smith JE. Cardiovascular changes after the three stages of nasotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2003, 91:667-71.
6. Xue FS, Zhang GH, Li XY, Sun HT, Li P, Li CW, Liu KP. The clinical assessment of Glidescope in orotracheal intubation under general anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiol 2007;73:451-7.
7. Amini S, Shakib M. Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing cesarean section with general anesthesia: application of Glidescope® Videolaryngoscope versus direct Laryngoscope. Anesth Pain Med 2015;5:e21836.
8. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101: 723-30.
9. Liu ZJ, Yi J, Guo WJ, Ma C, Huang YG. Comparison of McGrath Series 3 and Macintosh Laryngoscopes for Tracheal Intubation in PatientsWith Normal Airway by Inexperienced Anesthetists: A Randomized Study. Med 2016;95:e2514.
10. Tseng KY, Lu IC, Shen YC, Lin CH, Chen PN, Cheng KI. A comparison of the video laryngoscopes with Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation. Asian J Anesthesiol 2017;55:17-21.
11. Kwak HJ, Lee SY, Lee SY, Cho SY, Kim HS, Kim JY. McGrath video laryngoscopy facilitates routine nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a comparison with Macintosh laryngoscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74:256-61.
12. Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, Hung OR, Law JA, MacQuarrie K, McKeen D, George RB, Ngan J. TheMcGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomised, controlledtrial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia 2013;68:142-7.
13. Walker L, Brampton W, Halai M, Hoy C, Lee E, Scott I, McLernon DJ. Randomized controlled trial of intubation with the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope by inexperienced anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth 2009;103:440-5.
14. Burdett E, Ross-Anderson DJ, Makepeace J, Bassett PA, Clarke SG, Mitchell V. Randomized controlled trial of the A.P. Advance, McGrath, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in normal and difficult intubations cenarios: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth 2011;107:983- 8.
15. Frohlich S, Borovickova L, Foley E, O'sullivan E. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the Mc Grath or the Macintosh laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28:465-7.
16. Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC, Hoogstra J, Turkstra TP. A comparison of GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2008;107:144-8.
17. Lili X, Zhiyong H, Jianjun S. A comparison of the glidescope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2014;26:27-31.
18. Gómez-Ríos MÁ, Pinegger S, Mantilla MDC, Vizcaino L, Barreto-Calvo P, Paech MJ, López-Calviño B. A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq® NT, McGrath® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin. Braz J Anesthesiol 2016;66:289-97.