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

Users Online : 66919

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 : 2025 | Month : March | Volume : 19 | Issue : 3 | Page : UC06 - UC09 Full Version

Airway Exchange Catheter-guided versus Conventional Techniques of Nasotracheal Intubation: A Prospective Interventional Study


Published: March 1, 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2025/76887.20702
Ameena Jabbar, KP Biji, KT Shafna, A Krishna Das, S Syam Kumar

1. Specialist, Department of Anaesthesia, Welcare Hospital, Vytila, Ernakulam, Kerala, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India. 4. Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. KT Shafna,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Kozhikode-673008, Kerala, India.
E-mail: shafnakt87@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: The conventional Nasotracheal Intubation Technique (NTI), which involves the blind passage of an Endotracheal Tube (ETT) through the nose, is a potentially traumatic process. Airway Exchange Catheter (AEC) guidance for direct or Video Laryngoscopy (VLS) during NTI is likely to improve the first-attempt success rate, along with a reduced incidence of nasal trauma and bleeding. The primary objective is to assess the ease of ETT insertion into the oropharynx and trachea in terms of the number of attempts, navigability, and time taken for insertion. The secondary objectives are to assess the severity of bleeding, cuff rupture, and any other complications.

Aim: To compare AEC-guided NTI with the conventional technique for successful NTI.

Materials and Methods: This prospective interventional study was conducted in the main operation theatre complex of Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 2020 to August 2021 involving 70 patients who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery. Patients were divided into two groups: group C (conventional NTI group) and group G (AEC-guided NTI group). The number of insertion attempts of the ETT into the oropharynx and trachea, navigability through the nasal passage, severity of bleeding, time taken for intubation, and incidence of cuff rupture were noted. Independent t-tests and Chi-square tests were used to compare variables.

Results: The average age of patients in group G was 57.51±5.6 years, while in group C, it was 59.66±5.8 years. The results showed that ETT navigability was easier when using AEC, with a p-value of <0.01. There was a significant difference in the number of attempts for ETT insertion into the oropharynx and trachea (p<0.001). The total time taken for endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in group G compared to group C (p<0.01). The severity of bleeding was higher in group C, with 28.6% of intubations resulting in severe bleeding requiring suction, while the incidence was nil in group G.

Conclusion: The first-attempt success rate was higher for the AEC-guided technique of NTI compared to conventional NTI. The incidence of complications was lower with AEC-guided techniques.

Keywords

Guided intubation, Maxillofacial surgery, Nasal intubation, Video laryngoscopy

The NTI is an established airway management technique in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgeries, as it permits the administration of anaesthetic gases without compromising surgical accessibility (1),(2). Despite recent advances in airway management techniques, NTI remains challenging. Several complications, such as epistaxis and nasopharyngeal mucosal trauma, may occur during NTI (3).

The conventional technique of NTI includes the blind passage of the ETT into the oropharynx through the nose, followed by direct laryngoscopy and guiding the ETT into the trachea aided by Magill forceps. Video Laryngoscopy (VLS) has been recently described for NTI (4),(5). However, a good glottic view with VLS does not guarantee either an easy intubation or an atraumatic one. The process of traversing the nasal passage without trauma still remains a conundrum.

There are two main anatomical pathways in the nostril through which the ETT may pass during NTI. The lower pathway lies along the floor of the nose underneath the inferior turbinate, while the upper pathway lies above the inferior turbinate. Traditional teaching emphasises the importance of advancing the ETT through the lower pathway to avoid injury to the turbinates and cribriform plate (6),(7),(8). However, Anaesthesiologists often experience difficulty in passing the ETT through the lower pathway, resulting in trauma and bleeding (9).

Railroading the ETT over an AEC, bougie, or Ryle’s tube is less traumatic and more easily navigable through the lower nasal pathway compared to blind nasal insertion. Despite multiple attempts at conventional NTI, occasionally the tube cannot be directed into the trachea but instead courses posteriorly into the oesophagus, or it could become lodged between the vocal cords or fail to pass through the subglottis due to anatomical reasons. In these cases, the AEC or the Gum Elastic Bougie (GEB) can be used as intubating aids, allowing for rapid and successful tracheal intubation (10),(11),(12). The AEC has the added advantage of supporting oxygenation and ventilation during the process of intubation (9).

To date, there are no studies comparing conventional and AEC-guided NTI. Thus, the present study aimed to fill that gap by comparing these two techniques. The potential benefits of AEC-guided NTI in resource-limited areas of low-income countries highlight the importance of this research. The primary objectives were to assess the ease of insertion of the ETT into the oropharynx, as well as the number of attempts and total time required for insertion of the ETT into the trachea. The secondary objectives were to compare the severity of bleeding, cuff rupture, and any other complications that may arise.

Material and Methods

This prospective interventional study was conducted in the main operation theatre complex of a tertiary care teaching hospital, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India from January 2020 to August 2021. Approval from the Institutional Research and Ethical Committee (IEC) was obtained prior to starting the study, with the corresponding IEC number: GMCKKD/RP2020/IEC/413.

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: Total 70 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) 1 or 2, aged 18 to 65 years, with a height ranging from 150 cm to 180 cm and weighing between 40 kg and 80 kg, who were undergoing oral, maxillofacial, or neck surgeries requiring NTI, were enrolled in the study. Patients with a base of skull fracture, nasal trauma, coagulopathies, ASA PS 3 or 4, anticipated difficult airway, or those at risk of aspiration were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size was calculated using the formula:

n=(Zα+Zβ)2PQ*2/ d2

(1.96+0.84)2PQ*2/d2

Substituting the values of P and Q from the parent study by Vadhanan P and Tripaty DK, where ‘P’ is the prevalence of successful intubation in the first group of the parent study (95%), and ‘Q’ is the prevalence of unsuccessful intubation in the first group (5%). The degree of freedom, d, was taken as 15 (11). Substituting the values into the above equation, the sample size calculated for each group was 33.7. Total 35 patients were included in each group after obtaining written informed consent (group C conventional NTI group, n=35; group G, AEC-guided group, n=35).

Study Procedure

Before anaesthesia and surgery, patients were advised to fast for eight hours for solids and two hours for clear fluids. All patients received 150 mg of ranitidine and 10 mg of metoclopramide the night before and at 6 AM on the morning of surgery, and 0.5 mg of alprazolam was given the night before surgery. During the pre-anaesthetic check-up, the patency of the nostril was assessed using a cold spatula test. Both nostrils were prepared by instilling 0.1% w/v oxymetazoline drops one hour before the proposed surgery. An injection of glycopyrrolate (0.04 mg/kg) and dexamethasone (0.2 mg/kg) was administered intravenously 30 minutes before induction.

After preparing the theatre with the anaesthesia machine, airway equipment, emergency drugs, and drugs for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, the patients were shifted to the theatre. Monitors, including five-lead electrocardiograms, pulse oximeters, non invasive blood pressure monitors, and EtCO2 monitors, were attached. Patients were premedicated with an injection of morphine (0.1 mg/kg), ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg), and midazolam (0.02 mg/kg) intravenously. Anaesthesia was induced with an injection of propofol (2 mg/kg), and vecuronium (0.1 mg/kg) was administered to facilitate endotracheal intubation after confirming the adequacy of facemask ventilation. After three minutes, preservative-free lignocaine (1.5 mg/kg) was given intravenously, and NTI was performed by a qualified anaesthesiologist after 90 seconds. Cuffed nasal Ring-Adair-Elwyn (RAE) type Endotracheal Tubes (ETTs) with an internal diameter of 8 mm were selected for males and 7 mm for females.

Group C included patients in whom the conventional technique of NTI, with blind insertion of the ETT into the nasal cavity, was performed. Once the tube reached the oropharynx, direct laryngoscopy was conducted, and Magill forceps were used to guide the ETT into the larynx. Group G included patients in whom the AEC was used for intubation. A COOK AEC (11 Fr, 83 cm) was utilised. The ETT was railroaded over the lubricated AEC before insertion in such a way that the tip of the AEC protruded approximately 4 to 5 cm beyond the tip of the tube, making it easy to maneuver the AEC. The AEC with the ETT was inserted through the nose into the oropharynx, with the AEC passing through the lower nasal pathway first, followed by the ETT. Once the oropharynx was reached, direct laryngoscopy was performed, and Magill forceps were used to guide the AEC into the larynx. The ETT was then railroaded into the larynx over the AEC. External laryngeal manipulation was used if required in both groups.

The ease of insertion of the ETT into the oropharynx through the nose was assessed by the number of attempts at insertion and by navigability. Navigability was described as either smooth (grade 1), with slight resistance (grade 2), or impinged, requiring reinsertion through the same or another nostril or downsizing of the ETT (grade 3) (13). For the purpose of present study, while performing direct laryngoscopy, the severity of bleeding was assessed using a three-point scale. No bleeding was classified as grade 1, mild bleeding, such as the presence of blood on the tracheal tube, was classified as grade 2, and severe bleeding, such as blood pooling in the pharynx requiring suction, was classified as grade 3 (14). The number of attempts required for insertion into the trachea and the total time taken for intubation were also noted. The total time taken for intubation is defined as the time from the insertion of either the ETT or the AEC through the nose until the successful intubation of the trachea in groups C and G, respectively (15). The incidence of complications, such as cuff rupture, was also noted.

Statistical Analysis

The data were coded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 18.0. Quantitative variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, while qualitative variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Statistical comparisons between the two groups were performed using the Student’s t-test for continuous variables and the Chi-square test for categorical variables.

Results

The demographic data of both groups were comparable. The average age of patients in group G was 57.51±5.6 years, while in group C, it was 59.66±5.8 years. Most patients in group G belonged to ASA PS 2, whereas 60% of patients in group C belonged to ASA PS 1 (Table/Fig 1).

Intubation parameters were statistically significant across the groups (Table/Fig 2). Thirty patients (85.7%) in group G were successful on the first attempt for ETT insertion into the oropharynx, while in group C, only 14 were successful on the first attempt. Similarly, for ETT insertion into the trachea, 27 patients in group G were successful on the first attempt, while two were successful on the third attempt. In group C, only 16 patients were successful on the first attempt, and six patients were successful on the third attempt. This difference was statistically significant between the groups (p<0.001). Regarding navigability, 22 (62.9%) of patients in group G experienced smooth navigability, while it was smooth only for 22.9% of patients in group C (17:18, 48.6:51.4).

The total time taken for intubation was longer in group C (mean±SD; 107.85±64.52 seconds) compared to group G (mean±SD; 76±52.58) (Table/Fig 3). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of cuff rupture, with a p-value of <0.001. Out of the 35 patients, five had ruptured cuffs in group C, whereas the incidence was zero in group G. Severe bleeding (grade 3) requiring suction was present in 10 patients in group C and only three in group G.

Discussion

The NTI is routinely performed for oral and maxillofacial surgeries and in intensive care units where long-term ventilation is planned, as it reduces patient discomfort (16),(17). NTI under Video Laryngoscopic (VLS) guidance has recently achieved high overall and first-attempt success rates compared to flexible Fibreoptic Bronchoscopy (FOB), which is considered the gold standard for NTI. VLS-assisted NTI is highly recommended in scenarios like Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19), where Bio-aerosolisation associated with FOB is dangerous (17). NTI under VLS guidance is easier to master than FOB. Additionally, the hemodynamic stability is greater with the former technique. The requirement for expertise and expensive equipment makes FOB a less preferred technique in low-income countries with more resource-limited settings.

The present study showed a high first-attempt success rate (85.7%) and less total intubation time in the AEC-guided group. While assessing navigability and the severity of bleeding, it was found that the AEC-guided group had better navigability (p<0.001) and less severe bleeding (p<0.001) compared to the conventional group. The incidence of cuff rupture was also lower in the guided group.

An anaesthesiologist needs to master both conventional and advanced techniques of NTI, starting from blind nasal intubation to the most recent hybrid techniques incorporating both VLS and FOB. Knowledge of anatomy is the most crucial aspect of all techniques (18). VLS improves the Cormack-Lehane grading and the first-attempt success rate of NTI. However, the process of traversing the nasal passage atraumatically with the ETT remains a conundrum. Blind insertion of the ETT through the nose can result in injury to the turbinates, catastrophic bleeding, and often necessitates downsizing of the ETT. Although less common, avulsion of structures within the nasal cavity, dissection of retropharyngeal mucosa, and bacteremia can also occur as complications. Numerous other techniques, such as telescoping of the ETT, serial dilation of the nasal cavities, warming and softening of the ETT, and the use of vasoconstrictors, have been tried to overcome these problems, especially bleeding [19-21]. This highlights the importance of bougie or AEC-assisted intubations, which can be used with direct or VLS techniques. Bougie or AEC can be easily inserted through the lower nasal pathway without injuring the turbinates, and the ETT can be railroaded over it without any adverse sequelae. Downsizing of the ETT is seldom required (22).

The present study was conducted with 70 patients, of whom 35 underwent the conventional technique (group C) and the other 35 underwent the AEC-guided technique (group G) for NTI. The demographic features were comparable in both groups. The first attempt success rate for insertion into the oropharynx was 85.7% in group G, whereas it was only 40% in the conventional group. Abrons RO et al., conducted a randomised study comparing NTI using a bougie versus non bougie intubation with VLS, which showed a lower incidence of nasopharyngeal bleeding: 55% in the bougie group versus 68% in the non bougie group (p-value=0.033) at 60 to 90 seconds and 51% versus 70% (p-value=0.002) at five minutes (23). They also demonstrated that the use of Magill forceps for intubation assistance was lower with the bougie technique (9% versus 28%, p-value=0.0001), and there was no significant difference in the rates of first attempt and overall success rates between the two techniques (p-value=0.133 and p-value=0.750, respectively). In a study conducted by Vadhanan P and Tripaty DK, a lesser incidence of bleeding (p-value=0.02) and better ease of insertion were reported in bougie-guided NTI, but the time taken for intubation was longer in the bougie group (11). The results of both studies align with the present study, where an AEC was used in place of a bougie. The incidence of bleeding was lower, and the ease of insertion was better compared to the conventional technique. The first attempt success rate for NTI was significantly higher for group G (77.1% versus 37.1%). The total time taken for intubation was also significantly less in the AEC-guided group (76±52.58 seconds versus 107.85±64.52; p-value=0.01) in the present study, which is contrary to the findings of the aforementioned studies (11),(23).

A literature review by Lera S. et al., regarding safer techniques for nasal intubation conducted in 2017, reveals that the use of a catheter-guided technique for nasal intubation is associated with significantly lower rates of epistaxis and airway trauma, as well as a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality in patients during the perioperative period, compared to the conventional method (24).

In a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) conducted by Pourfakhr P. et al., using a Glidescope with or without a bougie for nasal intubation found that the incidence of bleeding and the use of Magill’s forceps to advance the ETT was lower in the bougie-guided group compared to the conventional group (p<0.001) (12). The mean time taken for intubation was also significantly less in comparison to the conventional group (48.63±8.53 vs. 55.9±10.76 seconds, p<0.001). These results correlate with the findings of the present study.

Additionally, directing the ETT into the trachea using Magill’s forceps has the disadvantage of cuff rupture. In the guided technique, Magill’s forceps can be used to guide the AEC, allowing the ETT to be passed over it so that the cuff remains untouched, resulting in a practically nil incidence of cuff rupture, as evidenced by the findings of the present study. In this context, AEC or bougie guidance for nasal intubation with direct visualisation or VLS becomes essential, although the literature regarding this is insufficient.

Limitation(s)

The need for an experienced and skilled anaesthetist adds to the limitations of our study, but NTI demands it. Using VLS instead of a direct laryngoscope could have made the technique simpler; however, the process of traversing the nasal passage is the same for both methods. Therefore, the results may be extrapolated. Thus, AEC-guided NTI should become routine practice alongside direct laryngoscopy or VLS.

Conclusion

The AEC-guided technique of NTI has a higher first-attempt success rate and requires less time for endotracheal intubation compared to the conventional technique. The severity of bleeding and the incidence of other complications are lower with AEC-guided techniques. As this interventional study is not randomised, more randomised trials are needed to reach a definitive conclusion. Similarly, further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to establish a more statistically significant difference between the two techniques of NTI to demonstrate that the AEC-guided method is superior to the conventional technique.

References

1.
Gnugnoli DM, Singh A, Shafer K. EMS Field Intubation.[Updated 2021 Jan 22]. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2021.
2.
Gupta N, Gupta A. Videolaryngoscope-assisted nasotracheal intubation: Another option. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(4):554-55. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Özkan AS, Akbas S, Toy E, Durmus M. North polar tube reduces the risk of epistaxis during nasotracheal intubation: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2018;90:21-26. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Patil AR, Kulkarni KR, Patil RS, Madanaik SS. Truview PCD-video laryngoscope aided nasotracheal intubation in case series of orofacial malignancy with limited mouth opening. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):256-58. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Gupta N, Garg R, Saini S, Kumar V. GlideScope video laryngoscope-assisted nasotracheal intubation by cuff-inflation technique in head and neck cancer patients. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(4):559-60. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Berry JM, Harvey S. Laryngoscopic orotracheal and nasotracheal intubation. InBenumof and Hagberg’s Airway Management: Third Edition 2012 Sep 1 (pp. 346- 358). Elsevier Inc. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Morgan GE, Mikhail MS. Morgan & Mikhail’s clinical anesthesiology. McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
8.
Carlos AA and Carin AH (2019) Airway management in adults. In: Gropper MA, editor. Miller’s Anaesthesia, 9th ed. Elsevier; 2019; 1397.
9.
Mort TC, Surette AM. “ETT exchange in the ICU.” Anesthesia Experts, 2018.
10.
Arisaka H, Sakuraba S, Furuya M, Higuchi K, Yui H, Kiyama S, et al. Application of gum elastic bougie to nasal intubation. Anesth Prog. 2010;57(3):112-13. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Vadhanan P, Tripaty DK. Effect of Bougie-guided nasal intubations upon bleeding: A randomised controlled trial. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2017;46(2):96. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Pourfakhr P, Ahangari A, Etezadi F, Moharari RS, Ahmadi A, Saeedi N, et al. Comparison of nasal intubations by GlideScope with and without a Bougie guide in patients who underwent maxillofacial surgeries: Randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1641-45. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Lim CW, Min SW, Kim CS, Chang JE, Park JE, Hwang JY. The use of a nasogastric tube to facilitate nasotracheal intubation: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(6):591-97. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Katz RI, Hovagim AR, Finkelstein HS, Grinberg Y, Boccio RV, Poppers PJ. A comparison of cocaine, lidocaine with epinephrine, and oxymetazoline for prevention of epistaxis on nasotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1990;2(1):16-20. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Wang LK, Zhang X, Wu HY, Cheng T, Xiong GL, Yang XD. Impact of choice of nostril on nasotracheal intubation when using video rigid stylet: A randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022;22(1):360. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Prasanna D, Bhat S. Nasotracheal intubation: An overview. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2014;13(4):366-72. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Cittadini A, Marsigli F, Sica A, Santonastaso DP, Russo E, Gamberini E, et al. Video laryngoscopy-guided nasal intubation: One more bullet in our rifle. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021;25(3):351. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Chauhan V, Acharya G. Nasal intubation: A comprehensive review. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016;20(11):662-67. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Shanahan E, Yu CV, Tang R, Sawka A, Vaghadia H. Thermal softening of polyvinyl chloride nasotracheal tubes: Effect of temperature on tube navigability. Can J Anaesth. 2017;64(3):331-32. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Tan YL, Wu ZH, Zhao BJ, Ni YH, Dong YC. For nasotracheal intubation, which nostril results in less epistaxis: Right or left?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;38(11):1180-86. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Park DH, Lee CA, Jeong CY, Yang HS. Nasotracheal intubation for airway management during anesthesia. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2021;16(3):232-47. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Reddy NG, Sekar RG, Gopinath S, Kumar SP, Ujwal B, Tejaswini PK. Nasotracheal vs. blind bougie insertion or bougie through nasal airway followed by tracheal intubation: A prospective randomised, controlled trial. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine. 2022;9(7):2171-79.
23.
Abrons RO, Zimmerman MB, El-Hattab YM. Nasotracheal intubation over a bougie vs. non-bougie intubation: A prospective randomised, controlled trial in older children and adults using videolaryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(12):1491- 500. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Lera S, Machan M, Derefaka G. A safer technique for nasal intubation: A literature review. Open Journal of Anesthesiology. 2017;7(8):275-85.[crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2025/76887.20702

Date of Submission: Nov 19, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Dec 23, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Jan 20, 2025
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2025

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. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 23, 2024
• Manual Googling: Jan 16, 2025
• iThenticate Software: Jan 18, 2025 (18%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

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