Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 29974

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : November | Volume : 18 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC01 - UC05 Full Version

Split Nasopharyngeal Airway, a Tracking Tool for Fibreoptic Nasotracheal Intubation: A Randomised Controlled Study


Published: November 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/69198.20234
Savita Saini, Manoj Kumari Katewa, Monica Chhikara, Susheela Taxak, Priyanka Aggarwal, Arvind Kumar, Sumit Kumar

1. Professor and Ex Head, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. 2. Ex Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. 4. Senior Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. 5. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. 6. Resident, Department of Radiodiagnsis, BJMC and GCRI, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 7. Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Manoj Kumari Katewa,
HN 60/30, Godara Pg behind Ex CM House, Near Sahu Clinic, D park Rohtak-124001, Haryana, India.
E-mail: katewamanoj321@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Managing a challenging airway in awake, sedated, or anaesthetised patients has made Fibreoptic Intubation (FOI) using a flexible Fibreoptic Bronchoscope (FOB) a mainstay in clinical practice.

Aim: To evaluate and compare fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation with or without Split Nasopharyngeal Airway (SNPA) as a conduit, focusing on time taken, ease of insertion, and haemodynamic changes.

Materials and Methods: This randomised controlled study was conducted at the Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India, on 80 patients who were randomly allocated into two groups: Group CL (the control group without SNPA) and Group NP (with SNPA). Both groups were induced with general anaesthesia, and nostrils were prepared for FOB. In Group CL, a well-lubricated FOB was inserted into the selected nostril without using SNPA, and endotracheal intubation was performed. In Group NP, an appropriately sized SNPA was lubricated and inserted into the selected nostril. The fiberscope was passed through the SNPA, the vocal cords were visualised, and the SNPA was removed before railroading the preloaded tube through the vocal cords to confirm correct placement. The time taken for bronchoscopy and intubation, ease of insertion, haemodynamic parameters, and bleeding were recorded in both groups. The data was coded, entered, and analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. A significance level was set at a p-value ≤0.05.

Results: Demographic data, including age and gender distribution, mean weight, height, Body Mass Index (BMI), and airway parameters such as Mallampati grading, neck circumference, inter-incisor distance, and ASA grading, were standardised. There was no significant difference between the CL and NP groups regarding these parameters. The time taken for FOB and intubation in Group CL was 2.59±0.96 minutes and 3.61±1.04 minutes, respectively, compared to 1.87±0.91 minutes and 2.51±0.86 minutes in Group NP (p-value=0.001). The time taken to visualise the glottis was also shorter in the NP group (6.70±13.97 minutes) compared to the CL group (24.02±13.06 minutes), which was significant. Fibreoptic bronchoscopy was considered easy in 16 patients (40%) in Group CL and 27 patients (67.5%) in Group NP (p-value=0.04). The increase in mean arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in Group CL than in Group NP just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx (p-value=0.05).

Conclusion: Fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation through an SNPA is less time-consuming and results in easier intubation. It causes less trauma to the nasal passage and leads to fewer haemodynamic variations in terms of mean arterial pressure and heart rate. Hence, SNPA is a better method for facilitating FOI compared to intubation without it.

Keywords

Difficult airway, Endotracheal tube, Fibreoptic bronchoscope, Fibreoptic intubation

To manage a challenging airway in awake, sedated, or anaesthetised patients, flexible FOI has become a mainstay. Its role is well recognised in guidelines for managing both anticipated and unanticipated difficult airways (1),(2),(3),(4). The nasal approach for FOI is often easier, as less angulation is required to enter the larynx compared to the oral technique; additionally, the tongue does not interfere with insertion in the nasal route (5). However, the use of a rigid tracheal tube with a sharpened Murphy eye may increase the risk of nasopharyngeal injury and nasal bleeding. When the lumen of the tube abuts the pharyngeal mucosa, moderate to severe haemorrhage, retropharyngeal laceration, and perforation can occur (6),(7).

To facilitate FOI through either the nasal or oral route, various channels have been employed, including intubating oral airways, laryngeal mask airways, intubating laryngeal masks, endotracheal tubes, and nasopharyngeal airways. The nasopharyngeal airway (Table/Fig 1) can be modified to serve as a conduit for FOI by being vertically split in a spiral or zigzag fashion, allowing for its removal before passing the endotracheal tube (8),(9). Unexpected difficulties encountered during tracheal intubation may result in hypoxia and pulmonary aspiration. Therefore, several methods have been developed to predict difficult airways, which are particularly important for critically ill patients, as any delays during intubation and multiple attempts at laryngoscopy are associated with increased complications, including hypoxaemia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and even cardiac arrest (10). Use of a bronchoscope can be a lifesaving measure, alleviating major complications related to the airway and tracheostomies (11).

Given that fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation is associated with the aforementioned complications, the present study aimed to identify an ergonomic method of intubation in terms of ease of insertion and time taken for the procedure. Primary outcome measures include the time taken for nasotracheal intubation and ease of insertion. Secondary outcome measures include any trauma or bleeding that may occur, as well as haemodynamic changes.

Material and Methods

This randomised controlled study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care at Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India. The study period was from February 2020 to March 2021, following approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC/Th/19/Anst12). Informed and written consent was obtained from all patients. This trial was registered under the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) with the number CTRI/2020/07/026519.

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged between 18 and 60 years of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II, who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia where nasotracheal intubation is indicated were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2), hypertension, cardiac disease, pregnancy, any coagulation disorder, or obstructed nasal passages were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A minimum of 35 patients was required in each group for the study. However, considering potential errors and dropouts, the sample size was increased to 40 per group. The sample size was calculated based on a study by Meena RK et al., which reported a duration of intubation of 79.76±11.88 seconds and 44.15±7.77 seconds in two groups, using α=0.05 and β=0.2 (12). The primary objective of this study was time-based.

The following formula was used for sample size calculation:

N=(r+1)(Zα/2+Z1-β)2σ2/rd2

where Zα/2 is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (e.g., for a confidence level of 95%, α is 0.05, and the critical value is 1.96), Zβ is the critical value of the normal distribution at β (e.g., for a power of 80%, β is 0.2, and the critical value is 0.842). The assumed difference of the mean (d) is 1.33, and the standard deviation (σ) is 2.

Study Procedure

To facilitate FOI through the nasal or oral route, various conduits have been used, including intubating oral airways, laryngeal mask airways, intubating laryngeal masks, endotracheal tubes, and nasopharyngeal airways. The nasopharyngeal airway can be modified to serve as a conduit for FOI by splitting it vertically in a spiral or zigzag fashion, which allows for easier removal before passing the endotracheal tube (8),(9).

Randomisation was performed using a computer-generated sequence of random numbers, and selected patients were randomly allocated to one of the following two equal groups: the Classic group (Group CL, n=40)-classic nasal fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation without using a nasopharyngeal airway-and the NP group (Group NP, n=40)-nasal fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation using a split nasopharyngeal airway (Table/Fig 2).

Preanaesthetic assessment was conducted for all patients a day prior to surgery, which included evaluating their general condition, body build, weight, height, heart rate, non invasive arterial blood pressure, and respiratory rate. A thorough systemic and airway examination was performed (Mallampati grading, neck circumference, inter-incisor gap). Routine investigations were advised, and both nostrils were examined for patency. The purpose and protocol of the study were explained to the patients, and informed written consent was obtained. Patients were kept fasting and premedicated.

In the operating theatre, standard vital monitors were attached, and an intravenous line was secured. Preoperative nebulisation with 4% lignocaine was administered. Both nostrils were prepared by instilling two drops of 0.1% xylometasoline hydrochloride solution. The length of the longitudinally split nasopharyngeal airway (Portex) was measured from the ala nasi to the ear lobule to select the appropriate size. In the other nostril, a nasopharyngeal airway (Portex) of size 5 was inserted for paraoxygenation. Preoxygenation with 100% oxygen was performed. Patients were premedicated with glycopyrrolate (0.005 mg/kg) followed by fentanyl (2 μg/kg), and induction of anaesthesia was achieved with propofol (2 mg/kg). Muscle relaxation was facilitated with vecuronium (0.1 mg/kg). Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane in 65% N2O and 35% O2. Intubation was performed through the selected nostril, while paraoxygenation with three litres of oxygen was provided through the nasopharyngeal airway (Portex) in the other nostril. End-tidal carbon dioxide was monitored throughout the process. If oxygen saturation fell below 94% at any point during the procedure, the patient was ventilated with 100% oxygen.

In Group CL (Fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation without using a nasopharyngeal airway, NPA): After mounting the tracheal tube over the flexible FOB, a well-lubricated FOB was inserted directly into the selected nostril and advanced. When the carina was seen, the endotracheal tube was then advanced into the trachea over the scope, and the FOB was removed while monitoring the position of the endotracheal tube.

In Group NP (Fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation with a split nasopharyngeal airway): A lubricated split nasopharyngeal airway was inserted into the selected nostril. After mounting the tracheal tube over the flexible FOB and under all aseptic precautions, the FOB was inserted through the nasopharyngeal airway into the same nostril. Oxygenation was continued through a size 5 Portex nasopharyngeal airway in the other nostril. The scope was advanced until the carina was visible. The split nasopharyngeal airway was then removed by an assistant, and the endotracheal tube was advanced into the trachea over the scope. The FOB was gently removed through the tracheal tube while monitoring the position of the endotracheal tube.

Additional confirmation of tracheal intubation was performed using capnography and bilateral auscultation. The times for fibreoptic bronchoscopy and intubation were noted in both groups. Haemodynamic parameters, i.e., heart rate and mean arterial pressure, were monitored throughout the procedure. Any response of hypertension or tachycardia was defined as a rise of more than 20 percent from baseline and was treated with a bolus of injection propofol (10-20 mg intravenously). Nasal bleeding was managed with nasal drops of xylometasoline (0.1% solution), application of local pressure, and gentle suctioning. At the end of the surgery, residual neuromuscular block was antagonised with intravenous injection of glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg/kg) and neostigmine (0.05 mg/kg). Upon completion of the surgery and emergence from general anaesthesia, the patient was extubated and transferred to the Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) for observation.

The following observations were recorded:

1. The time duration for glottic visualisation, fibreoptic bronchoscopy, and intubation was recorded (in minutes):
- T0=At insertion of the NPA
- T1=At insertion of the FOB
- T2=At visualisation of the glottis
- T3=At visualisation of the carina
- T4=At completion of intubation

The time to visualise the glottis for the CL group is calculated as (T2-T1), which is the time taken from the insertion of the FOB (T1) to the visualisation of the glottis (T2). In the NP group, it is also calculated as (T2-T1), taken from the insertion of the FOB into the split nasopharyngeal airway (T1) to the visualisation of the glottis (T2).

Total duration for fibreoptic bronchoscopy: In the CL group, the duration is calculated as (T3-T1), which is taken from the insertion of the FOB at T1 to the visualisation of the carina at T3. In the NP group, the duration is (T3-T0), taken from the insertion of the split nasopharyngeal airway at T0 to the visualisation of the carina at T3.

2. Haemodynamic changes:
Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were recorded at the following time intervals:
- TBL: Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded just before the procedure, specifically three minutes after the administration of vecuronium.
- TNP: Time just after the insertion of the nasopharyngeal airway in the NP group.
- TA: Time just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx.
- TB: Time just after the insertion of the FOB through the glottis into the trachea.
- TC: Time just after the insertion of the tracheal tube into the trachea.

3. Ease of insertion of the FOB (10):
- Not difficult: Upon initial introduction, the fiberscope is already aligned for good visualisation of the vocal cords, requiring little or no manipulation of the tip of the scope.
- Moderately difficult: Moderate manipulation of the fiberscope in all directions is necessary to locate the vocal cords.
- Difficult: Extensive manipulation of the fiberscope in all directions is often required, sometimes necessitating changes in the operator’s position, to identify the vocal cords.

4. Nasal bleeding assessment:

Any nasal bleeding was graded as ‘mild’ if it did not obscure the view of the FOB, and ‘severe’ if it was sufficient to obscure the view.

Statistical Analysis

The data were recorded and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics were reported using percentages, means, and standard deviations. Quantitative clinical indicators were compared between two groups using an unpaired t-test, while qualitative data in two or more groups were compared using the Chi-square test. Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) Windows software. The level of significance was set at p-value≤0.05.

Results

Demographic data, including age distribution, gender distribution, mean weight, height, and body mass index (Table/Fig 3), as well as airway parameters like Mallampati grading, neck circumference, inter-incisor distance, and ASA grading (Table/Fig 4), were standardised, and no significant differences were observed between the CL and NP groups regarding these parameters.

(Table/Fig 5) demonstrates that the mean time taken for glottic visualisation was shorter in the NP group compared to the CL group, and this difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.001). The time taken for FOB and FOI was also shorter in the NP group compared to the CL group, and this finding was statistically significant (p-value=0.001), as illustrated in (Table/Fig 6),(Table/Fig 7), respectively.

FOB was easier in the NP group than in the CL group, and this difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.04), as shown in (Table/Fig 8).

(Table/Fig 9) presents a comparison of haemodynamic changes, including mean heart rate at baseline (TBL), just after the insertion of the Nasopharyngeal Airway (NPA) (TNP), just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx (TA), into the glottis (TB), and into the trachea (TC). These changes were comparable in both groups (p-value>0.05). (Table/Fig 10) demonstrates the mean values of Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) at different time points and shows that the MAP just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx (TA) in the CL group was higher than in the NP group, with a statistically significant difference (p-value=0.05). Mean MAP at other time points was comparable in both groups (p-value>0.05).

(Table/Fig 11) presents a comparison of nasal bleeding, indicating that the majority of patients experienced no nasal bleeding. Twelve patients in the CL group and seven patients in the NP group had mild nasal bleeding, while one patient in the CL group experienced severe nasal bleeding, and there were no cases of severe bleeding in the NP group.

Discussion

In the present study, the mean time for glottic visualisation in the NP group was 6.7003±13.97 minutes, compared to the CL group, which had a mean time of 24.02±13.06 minutes. This difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.001). The mean total time for fibreoptic bronchoscopy for the CL and NP groups was 2.59±0.96 minutes and 1.87±0.91 minutes, respectively, and the difference was also found to be significant (p-value=0.001). The mean total time taken for fibreoptic intubation in the CL group was 3.61±1.04 minutes, while in the NP group it was 2.51±0.86 minutes, which was statistically significant between the two groups (p-value=0.001). This was attributed to the use of a split nasopharyngeal airway (NPA) as a conduit, which resulted in fewer attempts and less manipulation during nasal fibreoptic bronchoscopy and intubation. The appropriate length of the nasopharyngeal airway helps maintain airway patency in relaxed patients and improves the view of the larynx, allowing the tip of the FOB to be positioned directly in front of the laryngeal inlet. This improved view facilitates the maneuvering of the bronchoscope tip into the trachea, making nasal intubations less traumatic and reducing the time required for the procedure. Additionally, the NPA can be used for supplemental oxygenation during episodes of desaturation. Thus, it was observed that the use of a split nasopharyngeal airway is a safe and effective tool for reducing the time needed to visualise the larynx and perform tracheal intubation.

Regarding ease of insertion, in the present study, fibreoptic bronchoscopy was not difficult for 16 patients (40%) in the CL group and for 27 patients (67.5%) in the NP group. It was moderately difficult for 23 patients (57.5%) in the CL group and for 12 patients (30%) in the NP group. It was found to be difficult for one patient (2.5%) in each group. Overall, fibreoptic bronchoscopy was easier in the NP group compared to the CL group, and the difference was statistically significant (p-value=0.04). The nasopharyngeal airway can achieve the goal of maintaining airway patency while also positioning the scope tip near the laryngeal inlet, facilitating the process of laryngeal visualisation and intubation, even in challenging situations. The anatomically correct curvature of the nasopharyngeal airway places the FOB tip directly over the laryngeal inlet, contributing to a higher success rate of intubation.

The mean heart rate in the present study was comparable in both groups at baseline, just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx, glottis, and trachea (p-value>0.05). This may be attributed to the topical application of lignocaine. The mean mean arterial pressure (MAP) just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx in Group CL was 94.08±8.517 mmHg, while in Group NP it was 89.93±10.164 mmHg, showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p-value=0.05). The mean MAP values at baseline and just after the insertion of the FOB into the nasopharynx, glottis, and trachea were comparable in both groups (p-value>0.05). This difference can be attributed to the stressful stimulation caused by the stiff FOB cable in direct contact with the upper airway mucosa during its passage in Group CL. In contrast, in Group NP, the prior insertion of the soft and pliable nasopharyngeal airway reduced sympathetic stimulation since the FOB cable moved within the inserted split nasopharyngeal airway.

Ahmed AM et al., also conducted a study on intubation in anaesthetised and paralysed patients. They found that the time duration to visualise the larynx and achieve intubation was shorter in the group using the split nasopharyngeal airway as a conduit compared to the classic fibre optic nasal intubation group, with a statistically significant result (p-value<0.05). They also noted that MAP increased only during the insertion of the FOB until the visualisation of the larynx, measuring 100.57±4.69 mmHg in the group using classic nasal fibreoptic intubation, compared to 99.90±4.58 mmHg in the group using the split nasopharyngeal airway (p<0.001) (13).

Meena RK et al., conducted a study that calculated the time taken from the insertion of the FOB into the nasal cavity until the inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff. They found that the time taken for intubation was longer in the group using only the endotracheal tube compared to the group using the nasopharyngeal airway as a conduit (p-value<0.001). They also concluded that MAP was significantly higher, with an increase of 13.68% in the group using the endotracheal tube compared to 1.73% in the group using the nasopharyngeal airway as a conduit for intubation (p-value<0.001). Furthermore, they observed that while introducing the fiberscope through the nasal tube or split nasopharyngeal airway, no bleeding was seen in 90% of the patients in the group using the split nasopharyngeal airway, compared to 52.6% in the group using the nasal ETT (p-value=0.002) (12).

The time taken for intubation in group NP was less compared to group CL. The mean MAP at baseline, just after the insertion of the FOB into the glottis, and when the trachea was reached, was comparable in both groups. In the present study, the majority of patients (75%) in both groups had no nasal bleeding, and this was not statistically significant (p-value=0.23). This outcome can be attributed to effective nasal preparation with xylometasoline nasal drops and the use of a split nasopharyngeal airway as a conduit. Only one patient in the CL group experienced severe nasal bleeding; he was excluded from the study and replaced by another participant (p-value>0.05).

Patil T et al., also conducted a study and found that the mean intubation time was shorter in patients who were awake and nasally intubated with a modified nasopharyngeal airway in situ compared to those without a nasopharyngeal airway, and this difference was statistically significant (p-value<0.05). This reduction in intubation time was due to the use of modified NPA as a conduit, which resulted in fewer attempts and less manipulation. They also observed similar results and concluded that the success rate of intubation and the number of attempts were significantly lower in patients who were nasally intubated with the modified NPA compared to those intubated without it (p-value<0.05). Additionally, they found that the incidence of epistaxis and trauma to the nasal mucosa was higher in the group without the NPA (33.6%) than in the group that was nasally intubated with the modified nasopharyngeal airway (11.2%), which was statistically significant (p-value<0.05) (9).

Limitation(s)

All nasal intubations were performed on healthy, anaesthetised, and paralysed patients; therefore, present study results may not be applicable to other populations. Patency of both nostrils was required in all cases. The study was not blinded, which may introduce bias. All nasotracheal fibreoptic intubations were performed using polyvinyl chloride, so the results of present study may not be applicable to endotracheal tubes made of other materials. Additionally, this clinical trial was limited to general anaesthesia and may not be applicable to awake fibreoptic intubation. Therefore, further studies are required in awake patients.

Conclusion

The success of FOI largely depends on the skills and experience of the anaesthesiologist. The use of a conduit can improve fibreoptic tracheal intubation. Present study concluded that fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation through a split nasopharyngeal airway takes less time and offers better ease of intubation, as the nasopharyngeal airway conforms to the anatomical curvature of the upper airway, providing a straight, aligned path. This approach causes less trauma to the nasal passage and facilitates nasal intubation. Additionally, there are fewer haemodynamic variations in terms of mean arterial pressure and heart rate. Hence, the split nasopharyngeal airway is a better method to facilitate FOI compared to intubation without it.

References

1.
Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, Pearce AC. Difficult airway society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(7):675-94. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Drolet P. Management of the anticipated difficult airway - A systematic approach: Continuing professional development. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56(9):683-701. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Gil KS. Fiber-optic intubation: Tips from the ASA workshop. Anaesthesiology News Guide to Airway Management. 2012;38:21-29.
4.
Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anaesthesiology. 2013;118(2):251-70. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Heidegger T, Gerig HJ, Henderson JJ. Strategies and algorithms for the management of the difficult airway. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2005;19(4):661-74. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Ovassapian A, Yelich SJ, Dykes MH, Brunner EE. Fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation-incidence and causes of failure. Anaesth Analg. 1983;62(7):692-95. [crossref]
7.
Coe TR, Human M. The peri-operative complications of nasal intubation: A comparison of nostril side. Anaesthesia. 2001;56(5):447-50. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Boyce JR, Waite PD, Louis PJ, Ness TJ. Transnasal jet ventilation is a useful adjunct to teach fiberoptic intubation: A preliminary report. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(10):1056-60. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Patil T, Bengali R, Adke S. Fiberoptic intubation with modified nasopharyngeal airway as conduit. Anaesthesiology. 2017;6(1):103-06.
10.
Ahmed A, Azim A. Difficult tracheal intubation in critically ill. J Intensive Care. 2018;6:49. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Rashid AO, Islam S. Percutaneous tracheostomy: A comprehensive review. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(Suppl 10):S1128-38. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Meena RK, Mankodi RR, Meena K, Singh DK, Prakash S. A comparative study of two methods of nasal tracheal fiberoptic intubation. Anaesth, Pain and Intensive Care. 2018;22(2):187-92.
13.
Ahmed AM, Osama AN, Akmal AE, Hala A. Nasal fiberoptic intubation with and without split nasopharyngeal airway: Time to view the larynx and intubate. Egypt J Anaesth. 2018;34(3):95-99.[crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/69198.20234

Date of Submission: Mar 21, 2024
Date of Peer Review: May 01, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Jul 11, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 21, 2024
• Manual Googling: Apr 29, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Jul 10, 2024 (13%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 10

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com