RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Nasotracheal intubation is challenging for anaesthesiologists in faciomaxillary injuries due to the anticipated difficult airways. The effectiveness of a non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope was compared with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope during nasotracheal intubation. METHODS: Sixty American Society of Anaesthesiologists I-II patients aged between 18 and 60 years of both sexes undergoing elective faciomaxillary surgeries from September 2019 to February 2020 were prospectively randomised into two groups (Macintosh laryngoscope Group, McGrath video laryngoscope Group) of 30. The primary outcome was ease of intubation (Modified Intubation Difficulty Scale) and Nasotracheal intubation time (T1 time: from nostril to nasopharynx, T2 time: from nasopharynx until the first ETCO2, total time: T1 + T2). The secondary outcomes were Cormac Lehane grade, additional manoeuvres requirement, intubation failure, tracheostomy incidence and associated complications. RESULTS: T1, T2 and total (T1 + T2) time (mean ± SD) were statistically prolonged in the McGrath video laryngoscope than Macintosh laryngoscope group, with p = 0.044, p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively. The McGrath video laryngoscope facilitated a better laryngoscopic view (p = 0.002), favourable intubation difficulty scale scores, less lifting force (p = 0.002), reduced lip trauma (p = 0.002) and decreased Magill's forceps use (p = 0.002) than the Macintosh laryngoscope group. CONCLUSION: Despite longer intubation time, the non-channelled McGrath video laryngoscope offered favourable intubating conditions with superior glottis view, less lifting force and reduced Magill's forceps requirement, causing decreased airway trauma, lower intubation difficulty scale scores than Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Laryngoscopy and intubation are associated with the reflex response of hypertension, tachycardia and other intraoperative complications. Nebulised route drug administration and entropy-guided induction enable optimal intubating conditions. AIMS: To compare pre-induction nebulisation between 0.75% ropivacaine and 2% lignocaine in blunting the nasotracheal intubation response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients undergoing elective faciomaxillary surgeries were prospectively randomised to receive pre-induction nebulisation: 5mL of 2% lignocaine (100mg) (Group L) or 5mL of 0.75% ropivacaine (37.5mg) (Group R). Patients were induced and intubated (nasotracheal) with entropy monitoring. Observed parameters included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, entropy at baseline, induction, intubation, post-intubation one, three and five minutes, propofol induction dose, electrocardiogram changes and peri-intubation cough reflex. RESULTS: Ropivacaine aerosol proved significantly better than lignocaine aerosol on haemodynamics (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate) and cough reflex (p < 0.05). Both groups experienced similar entropy changes and propofol induction dose requirements and no fresh electrocardiogram changes (compared with the baseline). CONCLUSION: Pre-induction nebulised ropivacaine offers superior intubating conditions than lignocaine regarding haemodynamic response and cough reflex for faciomaxillary surgeries.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Local anaesthetics used in spinal anaesthesia have a limited duration of action. To prolong postoperative analgesia, adjuvants, mainly opioids, are used. As µ agonist drugs have side effects, other receptor agonists are considered. Nalbuphine is a safe and effective kappa agonist adjuvant. AIM: To compare the analgesic efficacy between fentanyl and nalbuphine adjuvants added to 3 mL of 0.5% intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, double-blind, comparative study was conducted in 60 patients of either sex belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I and II aged 18-65 years undergoing lower limb surgery with entropy monitoring, randomly allocated into two groups. Group F (n = 30) received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (3 mL) + 25 µg (0.5 mL) fentanyl. Group N (n = 30) received 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (3 ml) + 0.8 mg (0.5 mL) nalbuphine intrathecally. Hemodynamics, entropy, motor and sensory block characteristics, and complications were noted. RESULTS: The nalbuphine group had a significantly longer two-segment regression time of sensory blockade and extended analgesia duration than the fentanyl group. Haemodynamics, entropy, time for onset of sensory and motor blockade and adverse effects were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine prolongs sensory blockade and postoperative analgesia duration with minimal side effects and is a safe intrathecal adjuvant.