Next Article in Journal
Prevalence of Parent-Reported Food Allergy in a Mexican Pre-School Population
Next Article in Special Issue
Does Regular Practice with a “Flexible Bronchoscopy Simulator” Improve Fibreoptic Intubation Skills in Experts and Novices? A Randomized Controlled Study
Previous Article in Journal
Importance of Skeletal Muscle and Interdisciplinary Team Approach in Managing Pneumonia in Older People
Previous Article in Special Issue
ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 15
10.3390/jcm12155096
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Severely Restricted Mouth Opening—A Pilot Study

by
Zohal Popal
1,†,
André Dankert
1,*,†,
Philip Hilz
1,
Viktor Alexander Wünsch
1,
Jörn Grensemann
2,
Lili Plümer
1,
Lars Nawrath
1,
Linda Krause
3,
Christian Zöllner
1 and
Martin Petzoldt
1
1
Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
2
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
3
Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(15), 5096; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155096
Submission received: 10 July 2023 / Revised: 27 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 3 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Airway Management & Respiratory Therapy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: An inter-incisor gap <3 cm is considered critical for videolaryngoscopy. It is unknown if new generation GlideScope Spectrum™ videolaryngoscopes with low-profile hyperangulated blades might facilitate safe tracheal intubation in these patients. This prospective pilot study aims to evaluate feasibility and safety of GlideScopeTM videolaryngoscopes in severely restricted mouth opening. Methods: Feasibility study in 30 adults with inter-incisor gaps between 1.0 and 3.0 cm scheduled for ENT or maxillofacial surgery. Individuals at risk for aspiration or rapid desaturation were excluded. Results: The mean mouth opening was 2.2 ± 0.5 cm (range 1.1–3.0 cm). First attempt success rate was 90% and overall success was 100%. A glottis view grade 1 or 2a was achieved in all patients. Nasotracheal intubation was particularly difficult if Magill forceps were required (n = 4). Intubation time differed between orotracheal (n = 9; 33 (25; 39) s) and nasotracheal (n = 21; 55 (38; 94) s); p = 0.049 intubations. The airway operator’s subjective ratings on visual analogue scales (0–100) revealed that tube placement was more difficult in individuals with an inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm (n = 10; 35 (29; 54)) versus ≥2.0 cm (n = 20; 20 (10; 30)), p = 0.007, while quality of glottis exposure did not differ. Conclusions: GlidescopeTM videolaryngoscopy is feasible and safe in patients with severely restricted mouth opening if given limitations are respected.

1. Introduction

Despite emerging developments and innovations in the field of airway management, difficult tracheal intubation is still a challenging situation in anesthesia, emergency and intensive care medicine and a main cause for anesthesia-related adverse events [1,2,3]. Restricted mouth opening is an important risk factor and a possible exclusion criterion for tracheal intubation with conventional direct laryngoscopes [4,5,6].
Videolaryngoscopes use cameras embedded on the blade tip of a laryngoscope that display the camera view of the glottis on a screen (indirect laryngoscopy) and hereby facilitate tracheal tube placement under improved visual control [7,8]. Simulation studies indicated a benefit of videolaryngoscopy in many clinical settings [9,10]. Videolaryngoscopy has been clinically established for more than two decades [11,12,13,14]. A recent Cochrane analysis revealed that videolaryngoscopes improve glottis exposure and prevent failed intubation, hypoxemic events and accidental esophageal intubation [15]. Hence, universal first-line or first-intend videolaryngoscopy became popular in adults in many hospitals [16,17]. Routine use of videolaryngoscopy has been recommended whenever feasible [18], awake videolarygoscopy became an established technique to manage expected difficult intubation [19,20] and the first validated universal classification for videolaryngoscopy was recently introduced [7,8].
Videolaryngoscopy, however, might be particularly helpful in individuals with restricted mouth opening, although robust prospective clinical data are rare. On the other hand, severely restricted mouth opening may alter blade insertion, blade advancement and glottis visualization, as well as tracheal tube alignment and placement during videolaryngoscopic-guided tracheal intubation; hence, restricted mouth opening is considered an important risk factor for difficult or failed videolaryngoscopy and a possible limitation of the method [5,6,21,22,23,24].
An inter-incisor gap <3.0 cm has been proposed to be a critical threshold for videolaryngoscopy [21,22,23,24,25,26]. However, study findings are still inconclusive and reasonable lower limits for inter-incisor gaps for videolaryngoscopy have never been systematically evaluated in larger prospective trials. Notably, especially in patients with restricted mouth opening the experience of the airway operator has to be considered a relevant cofactor for successful tracheal intubation with videolaryngoscopy [27].
Further, the specific blade shape and profile of videolaryngoscopes have to be considered; they particularly differ between Macintosh type and hyperangulated blades, but also between manufacturers. Most manufacturers provide two different shaped videolaryngoscopy blades: Macintosh type blades with a small angle that still allows for a direct view on the glottis, and hyperangulated blades that allow for a better view beneath the epiglottis, requiring less lifting force [28], but disqualify for direct laryngoscopy. A recent meta-analysis suggested that the improved glottis exposure achieved with hyperangulated blades might not necessarily translate into faster tracheal intubation [29]; however, it remains unclear if the improved view might translate into better intubation in terms of first pass or overall success rates [29]. Due to their specific geometry and function, hyperangulated blades might be particularly helpful for tracheal intubation in individuals with restricted mouth opening; however, currently, robust data that support this assumption are still lacking.
Nasotracheal intubation is a very common practice in patients with severely restricted mouth opening, especially in those undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery [30]; this constellation has most commonly be considered a traditional domain of awake bronchoscopic intubation [19], and the role and limitations of videolaryngoscopy remain unclear.
The GlideScopeTM was the first commercially available videolaryngoscope and was introduced by Dr. John Pacey in 2001. Cooper et al. reported their first clinical experience in 2003 [13]. The latest version is the GlideScope Spectrum™ single-use videolaryngoscopes, which use hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy blades with a low-profile design (diameter: height 11 mm for the LoPro S3 and 12 mm for the LoPro S4 blade, Figure 1). From the theoretical point of view, this signature blade angle as well as the low profile might contribute to an improved maneuverability and enhanced working space in individuals with restricted mouth opining. However, it is unknown if these favorable attributes might improve glottis exposure or enable better, faster or safer tracheal intubation in individuals with small inter-incisor gaps. Currently, there is a lack of robust data regarding feasibility and safety of videolaryngosopy in individuals with severely restricted mouth opening ≤3.0 cm.
The aim of this prospective observational pilot study was to assess feasibility and safety of videolaryngoscopic intubation with the GlideScope Spectrum™ in individuals with severely restricted mouth openings. A secondary aim of the study was to compare the success rates, intubation times and subjective ratings of the airway operators regarding the quality of glottis exposure and ease of tube placement between individuals with inter-incisor gaps of <2.0 cm and ≥2.0 cm and between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations with the GlideScope Spectrum™.

2. Materials and Methods

This single-center prospective observational cohort study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The design and reporting were adapted to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (Table S1). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee of the Medical Board of Hamburg, Germany) on 9 July 2019 (PV6094) and registered prior to patient enrollment on Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04174833, first posted 2 November 2019, Principle Investigator Martin Petzoldt). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

2.1. Patient Allocation

Adult patients ≥18 years that presented at our Anesthesia Preassessment Clinic before elective ear, nose and throat (ENT) or oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgery between 20 January and 17 November 2021 were assessed for eligibility. Only individuals with severely restricted mouth openings between 1.0 and 3.0 cm for any reason scheduled for elective ENT or OMF surgery under general anesthesia and planned orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations were considered for inclusion. Pregnant or breastfeeding women and patients with confirmed indications for awake bronchoscopic intubation, such as progressive pharyngolaryngeal tumors, abscesses or other obstructive or space-consuming lesions, as well as loose teeth, anticipated difficult facemask ventilation, risk for rapid desaturation or risk for pulmonary aspiration, who qualified for rapid sequence induction, were excluded.
All patients underwent a structured preoperative physical examination and risk evaluation in accordance with standards laid out by the Department of Anesthesiology that comprises clinical history and physical examinations inclusive the upper lip bite test, the simplified airway risk index (SARI that incorporates the risk predictors: mouth opening, thyromental distance, Mallampati score, movement of the neck, underbite, body weight and history of previous intubations), the Wilson score (that incorporates weight, cervical spine and jaw mobility; degree of retrognathia; prominent incisors; and the inter-incisor distance) [4,6] and flexible nasendoscopy [31,32] if appropriate. Patients were systematically checked for indicators for awake tracheal intubation taking into account predictors for difficult tracheal intubation, suspected difficult facemask and/or supraglottic-airway ventilation, apnea intolerance and risk for aspiration [33].

2.2. Data Collection

All tracheal intubations were performed in the operation theater using GlideScope Spectrum™ single-use videolaryngoscopes (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA) with either LoPro S3 or LoPro S4 blades. GlideRite® Stylets (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA) were used for all orotracheal intubations, while nasotracheal intubations were performed without a stylet. Indirect epiglottis lifting facilitated by point pressure on the hyoepiglottic ligament with the blade tip placed in the epiglottic vallecula was attempted first-line in all patients [34]. Either endotracheal tubes (RüschelitTM, Teleflex Medical, Athelon, Ireland), cuffed reinforced endotracheal tubes (Woodbridge type; Mallinckrodt Lo-ContourTM, Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) or Shiley™ oral or nasal RAE tubes (RAE TrachealTubes with TaperGuardTM Cuff; Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) were used for tracheal intubation. Highdosage rocuronium bromide was used to facilitate tracheal intubation, and adequate neuromuscular blockade was verified with train-of-four measurements (ToFscanTM, Dräger, Lübeck, Germany) in all patients.
Anesthesia induction; the choice of drugs, patient positioning and tracheal intubation; the choice of the blade size (either LoPro S3 or S4); and the use of airway adjuncts, tracheal introducer catheters, Magill forceps, airway optimization maneuvers and conversion to different intubation techniques and devices were left at the discretion of the anesthetists.
All participating physicians were consultant anesthetists experienced in the management of difficult airways. Furthermore, all physicians attended an at least 30 min structured manikin airway training inspired by the ‘Bath tea trolley training’ concept [35]. The years of physicians’ work experience were assessed within a questionnaire.
Study outcome variables, such as intubation time, intubation and laryngoscopy attempt or airway-related adverse events, were assessed by an independent study observer, while intubation-related variables such as increased lifting force were assessed by the airway operator. Further the airway operators subjectively rated the quality of glottis exposure, the ease of tube placement and the overall difficulty of videolaryngoscopic intubation on a visual analogue scale (0–100; lower values better).
All laryngoscopy videos were captured and reviewed by the airway operator and two additional independent raters (AD, PH) who assessed the percentage of glottis opening (POGO) [36] and videolaryngoscopic glottis view grades (six grades as proposed by Petzoldt [7,8] and coworker; modified after [32,33,34]): grade 1: vocal cords completely visible; grade 2a: part of the cords visible; grade 2b: posterior cords only just visible; 2c: arytenoids but not cords visible; grade 3: epiglottis but no glottis visible; and grade 4: laryngeal structures not visible). All raters were blinded to the ratings of each other. Discrepancies were discussed thereafter, and a consensus vote was reached in each case.
The inter-incisor gap, defined as the distance between patient’s upper and lower incisors with maximal mouth opening, was measured using a single-use measuring tape with an exact millimeter scale in the midline from the upper to lower teeth or gum before anesthesia induction (active mouth opening of the patient) and after anesthesia induction with complete neuromuscular blockade (passive mouth opening by the airway operator).

2.3. Sample Size

This is a pilot study with a hypothesis-generating, explorative character. The primary aim of the study was to prove feasibility and safety of GlideScope SpectrumTM videolaryngoscopic intubation in individuals with severely restricted mouth opening. We considered that a case sample of 30 would be appropriate to first demonstrate feasibility.

2.4. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure to demonstrate feasibility was the overall success rate of videolaryngoscopic intubation with the GlideScope SpectrumTM, regardless of the number of attempts and time needed. Secondary outcome measures were the first attempt success (only one laryngoscopy and intubation attempt), intubation time (from the moment the device first touches the patient’s mouth until inflation of the tube cuff in the trachea), time to the best view gathered by videolaryngoscopy, percentage of glottis opening (POGO) [36], videolaryngoscopic glottis view grades (six grades [7,8]), the videolaryngoscopic intubation and difficult airway classification (VIDIAC) score [7,8], difficult facemask ventilation, airway-related adverse events as previously defined [2], recommendation for awake tracheal intubation recorded by the airway operator on an airway alert card (for future anesthetics), subjective rating of the quality of glottis view, the ease of tube placement and the overall difficulty of videolaryngoscopic intubation (visual analogue scales 0–100, lower values better).

2.5. Descriptive Statistics

Sample characteristics are given as absolute and relative frequencies or mean (standard deviation) as well as median (interquartile range), whichever is appropriate. Differences between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations as well as between inter-incisor gaps <2.0 cm and ≥2.0 cm were compared using the Student’s t-test. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We report nominal p-values without correction for multiplicity. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0.0.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Within the study period between 20 January and 17 November 2021, 2268 adults scheduled for elective tracheal intubation for ENT or OMF surgery were assessed for eligibility and 31 patients with severely restricted mouth opening who fulfilled all eligibility criteria were included (Figure 2). One of the patients dropped out because surgery was cancelled. The dataset of this analysis is complete without missing values.
Baseline characteristics of the study cohort are given in Table 1. Ten skilled anesthetists with a mean (SD) professional work experience of 16.3 (±6.3) years participated after an extended, focused mannequin pretraining. In total, 9 patients (30%) underwent orotracheal intubations and 21 (70%) underwent nasotracheal intubations with the GlideScope Spectrum™. The mean inter-incisor distance before anesthesia induction was 2.2 ± 0.5 cm and ranged between 1.1 and3.0 cm. Overall, 20 participants had an inter-incisor gap ≥2.0 cm and 10 had an inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm. The mean inter-incisor gap increased after anesthesia induction and neuromuscular blockade (2.3 ± 0.5 cm). However, in three individuals, the inter-incisor gap decreased after anesthesia induction. The main reasons for the restricted mouth openings were pain, temporomandibular joint dysfunctions, jaw fractures, cervicofacial flaps for head and neck reconstruction and/or tumors.
Tracheal intubation with the GlideScope Spectrum™ was successful in all participants. The first attempt success rate was 90%. Vocal cords were either completely (glottis view grade 1) or partly (glottis view grade 2a) visible [7,8] with the GlideScope Spectrum™. Videolaryngoscopic intubation was severe in 1 patient (VIDIAC score ≥ 3), hard in 2 patients (VIDIAC score 2) and easy or moderate (VIDIAC score ≤ 1) in the other 27 patients [7,8]. The glottis view grades were significantly better during nasotracheal intubation compared with orotracheal intubation (p = 0.048) and in individuals with an inter-incisor gap ≥2.0 cm compared with those with an inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm (p = 0.019). Further the POGO score was significantly higher in individuals that underwent nasotracheal intubation compared with those that underwent orotracheal intubation (88.2% versus 77.0%; p = 0.012) (Table 2).
The intubation time significantly differed between orotracheal (33 (25; 39) s) and nasotracheal (55 (39; 94) s); p = 0.049 intubations. We did not find a difference in intubation times between individuals with inter-incisor gaps ≥2.0 cm (36 (32; 62) s) and those with inter-incisor gaps <2.0 cm (59 (44; 104) s); p = 0.163 (Figure 3). Nasal intubations were reported to be particularly difficult if Magill forceps were required (n = 4). Figure 4 illustrates that time differences between individuals with an inter-incisor gap ≥2.0 cm and <2.0 cm predominantly rely on two extreme cases with a time to intubation above 120 s (Table 2).
Airway operators subjective ratings on visual analogue scales (0–100; lower values better) revealed that tube placement was more difficult in individuals with an inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm (35 (29; 54)) versus ≥2 cm (20 (10; 30)), p = 0.007, while the quality of glottis view did not differ between inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm (15 (4; 36)) and ≥2.0 cm (10 (5; 18)), p = 0.206 (Table 2).
In nine patients (30%), the airway operators issued an airway alert card after videolaryngoscopic intubation in order to warn physicians for future anesthetics; however, only in a single patient with a mouth opening of only 1.1 cm, the airway operator recommended awake bronchoscopic intubation for future anesthetics (Table 2).

4. Discussion

In this prospective pilot study, we were able to demonstrate feasibility and safety of GlideScope SpectrumTM videolaryngoscopy in 30 patients with severely restricted mouth opening (1.1 to 3.0 cm) undergoing ENT or OMF surgery. Videolaryngoscopy was successful in all 30 patients. Due to the underlying diseases and planned surgery, many of these patients required nasotracheal intubation. Although overall glottis exposure was good with the GildeScope SpectrumTM in these patients, airway operators rated that tube placement was more difficult in individuals with inter-incisor gaps <2.0 cm and particularly if Magill forceps were required for nasotracheal intubation. In most of the patients, airway operators recommended to use asleep videolaryngoscopic intubation if the patient required another tracheal intubation in the future; only in a single patient with a mouth opening of only 1.1 cm did the airway operator recommended awake bronchoscopic intubation for future anesthetics.
During preoperative airway preassessment and preselection of eligible patients, it should be considered that an active mouth opening as performed by an awake patient does not necessarily equal a passive mouth opening by the airway operator after anesthesia induction. In our case series, the inter-incisor distance decreased in 10% of the patients after anesthesia induction and neuromuscular blockade. A previous retrospective study already reported difficulties achieving full mouth opening after anesthetic induction in 20% of the patients with oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer, in whom adequate mouth opening was assessed preoperatively [41]. Pain, temporomandibular joint dysfunctions, jaw fractures, cervicofacial flaps for head and neck reconstruction and/or tumors were the main reasons for the restricted mouth openings in our study.
For orotracheal intubation, hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes are most commonly used in conjunction with the corresponding hyperangulated stylets that complement the angle of the blade and thus optimize the advancement of the tracheal tube through the laryngeal inlet guided by the videolaryngoscope camera. However, surgical patients with severely reduced mouth opening often require nasotracheal intubation (70% of the participants in our cohort). For nasotracheal intubation with hyperangulated videolaryngoscopes, stylets cannot be used; hence, maneuverability of the tube in the pharynx and advancement of the tube through the laryngeal inlet might be affected. In these cases, Magill forceps are typically used to improve tube advancement [42].
Our data illustrate that intubation time was significantly longer for nasotracheal intubation than for orotracheal intubation. However, the mean intubation time of 55 s for nasotracheal intubation in our study is similar to the one reported for nasotracheal intubation with the GlideScope SpectrumTM in individuals without restricted mouth opening in previous studies [42]. Notably, nasal intubation was particularly difficult and prolonged if Magill forceps were required. This might be due to the fact that the handling of the Magill forceps through a small inter-incisor gap is particularly challenging.
To our opinion, some important limitations of videolaryngoscopy in patients with severely restricted mouth opening must be considered when the decision for asleep tracheal intubation with a hyperangulated videolaryngoscope or awake brochnochoscopic intubation is made. First of all, it has to be considered that supraglottic airway devices are likely to fail in individuals with severely restricted mouth opening and, thus, disqualify as a fallback plan if airway management turns out to be more difficult than expected. Secondly, in our opinion, individuals with severely restricted mouth opening and an additional risk for aspiration, rapid desaturation or difficult facemask ventilation or expected difficult intubation due to progressive obstructive or space-consuming tumors should not be considered for asleep videolaryngoscopy; hence, they were excluded in our study [43,44].
Currently, awake bronchoscopic intubation is regarded standard of care in individual with severely restricted mouth opening, although thresholds are not well-defined [19,33,43,45]. Most guidelines do not provide thresholds for critical mouth openings that could be used for decision making for videolaryngoscopy or awake bronchoscopic tracheal intubation [12,19,33,43]. The French guidelines for ‘difficult intubation and extubation in adult anesthesia’ recommends not to use videolaryngoscopes if patients mouth opening is <2.5 cm without providing clear evidence for this recommendation [45].
Few studies with heterogenous design and inconsistent findings have addressed the issue of small mouth opening and videolaryngoscopy [20,21,22,23,46,47,48]. Three previous studies found that a mouth opening <3.0 cm was not an independent predictor for difficult [48] or failed [22] intubation or for first-pass intubation success [23] with the GlidescopeTM. However, in all of these studies, it remains unclear why a threshold of <3.0 cm was chosen. In contrast, in 2016, Aziz and coworkers found that a mouth opening <3.0 cm was an independent predictor for difficult videolaryngoscopy with hyperangulated blades [21]; however, in this study, patients with inter-incisor gaps ≤2.0 cm were excluded. De Jong and coworkers used an inter-incisor gap <2.2 cm as an exclusion criterion for a videolaryngoscopy implementation program [49]. In a study of Cook and coworkers, small mouth openings were categorized into >5.0 cm, 5.0–4.0 cm, 4.0–3.0 cm and 3.0–2.0 cm, representing escalating difficulty classes. They found that smaller mouth openings were significantly associated with difficult intubation with the channeled AirtraqTM videolaryngoscope. However, individuals with a mouth opening <2.0 cm were excluded and managed with awake bronchoscopic intubation [24].
This study has some limitations. Our data represent a single-center experience in patients undergoing ENT or OMF surgery and caution should be taken with caution when extrapolating them to other institutions or different patient populations. All tracheal intubations were performed by very skilled, specially trained consultant anesthetists; hence, the finding should not be extrapolated to less experienced airway operators.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that GlideScope SpectrumTM videolaryngoscopy is feasible and safe in patients with severely restricted mouth opening if applied by experienced airway operators. Given limitations, such as expected difficult facemask ventilation, suspected risk for rapid desaturation or for pulmonary aspiration, must be respected. This study demonstrated that overall glottis exposure was good; however, especially in patients with mouth openings <2.0 cm and those requiring nasotracheal intubation by means of a Magill forceps, restricted tube placement has to be expected. Further controlled trial are required to assess efficiency of GlideScope SpetrumTM videolaryngoscopy in individuals with severely restricted mouth opening.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12155096/s1, Table S1: STROBE statement.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D., Z.P. and M.P.; data curation, A.D., P.H. and Z.P.; formal analysis, A.D. and L.K.; investigation, M.P.; methodology, A.D. and Z.P.; supervision, M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D., Z.P. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, P.H., V.A.W., J.G., L.P., L.N., L.K. and C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This Investigator Initiated Trial was founded in parts by a research grant from Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA. We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of UKE-Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf and DFG–German Research Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association of Hamburg (PV6094, 9 July 2019) and registered with Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT02566343). The design and reporting were adapted to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cook, T.M.; Woodall, N.; Frerk, C.; Fourth National Audit, P. Major complications of airway management in the UK: Results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br. J. Anaesth. 2011, 106, 617–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Huitink, J.M.; Lie, P.P.; Heideman, I.; Jansma, E.P.; Greif, R.; van Schagen, N.; Schauer, A. A prospective, cohort evaluation of major and minor airway management complications during routine anaesthetic care at an academic medical centre. Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Joffe, A.M.; Aziz, M.F.; Posner, K.L.; Duggan, L.V.; Mincer, S.L.; Domino, K.B. Management of Difficult Tracheal Intubation: A Closed Claims Analysis. Anesthesiology 2019, 131, 818–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Detsky, M.E.; Jivraj, N.; Adhikari, N.K.; Friedrich, J.O.; Pinto, R.; Simel, D.L.; Wijeysundera, D.N.; Scales, D.C. Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. JAMA 2019, 321, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Norskov, A.K.; Wetterslev, J.; Rosenstock, C.V.; Afshari, A.; Astrup, G.; Jakobsen, J.C.; Thomsen, J.L.; Bottger, M.; Ellekvist, M.; Schousboe, B.M.; et al. Effects of using the simplified airway risk index vs. usual airway assessment on unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation—A cluster randomized trial with 64,273 participants. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 116, 680–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Roth, D.; Pace, N.L.; Lee, A.; Hovhannisyan, K.; Warenits, A.M.; Arrich, J.; Herkner, H. Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 5, CD008874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kohse, E.K.; Siebert, H.K.; Sasu, P.B.; Loock, K.; Dohrmann, T.; Breitfeld, P.; Barclay-Steuart, A.; Stark, M.; Sehner, S.; Zollner, C.; et al. A model to predict difficult airway alerts after videolaryngoscopy in adults with anticipated difficult airways—The VIDIAC score. Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 1089–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Siebert, H.K.; Kohse, E.K.; Petzoldt, M. A universal classification for videolaryngoscopy using the VIDIAC score requires real world conditions: A reply. Anaesthesia 2023, 78, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sanfilippo, F.; Messina, S.; Merola, F.; Tigano, S.; Morgana, A.; Dimagli, A.; Via, L.L.; Astuto, M. Endotracheal intubation during chest compressions in the pediatric simulation setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Signa Vitae 2022, 18, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Via, L.L.; Messina, S.; Merola, F.; Tornitore, F.; Sanfilippo, G.; Santonocito, C.; Noto, A.; Longhini, F.; Astuto, M.; Sanfilippo, F. Combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation approach in the normal airway scenario: A simulation study on anesthesiology residents. Signa Vitae 2023, 19, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Apfelbaum, J.L.; Hagberg, C.A.; Caplan, R.A.; Blitt, C.D.; Connis, R.T.; Nickinovich, D.G.; Hagberg, C.A.; Caplan, R.A.; Benumof, J.L.; Berry, F.A.; et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013, 118, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Frerk, C.; Mitchell, V.S.; McNarry, A.F.; Mendonca, C.; Bhagrath, R.; Patel, A.; O’Sullivan, E.P.; Woodall, N.M.; Ahmad, I. Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working, g. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br. J. Anaesth. 2015, 115, 827–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Cooper, R.M. Use of a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in the management of a difficult airway. Can. J. Anaesth. 2003, 50, 611–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Vargas, M.; Servillo, G.; Buonanno, P.; Iacovazzo, C.; Marra, A.; Putensen-Himmer, G.; Ehrentraut, S.; Ball, L.; Patroniti, N.; Pelosi, P.; et al. Video vs. direct laryngoscopy for adult surgical and intensive care unit patients requiring tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2021, 25, 7734–7749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hansel, J.; Rogers, A.M.; Lewis, S.R.; Cook, T.M.; Smith, A.F. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 4, CD011136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cook, T.M.; Boniface, N.J.; Seller, C.; Hughes, J.; Damen, C.; MacDonald, L.; Kelly, F.E. Universal videolaryngoscopy: A structured approach to conversion to videolaryngoscopy for all intubations in an anaesthetic and intensive care department. Br. J. Anaesth. 2018, 120, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. De Jong, A.; Sfara, T.; Pouzeratte, Y.; Pensier, J.; Rolle, A.; Chanques, G.; Jaber, S. Videolaryngoscopy as a first-intention technique for tracheal intubation in unselected surgical patients: A before and after observational study. Br. J. Anaesth. 2022, 129, 624–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chrimes, N.; Higgs, A.; Hagberg, C.A.; Baker, P.A.; Cooper, R.M.; Greif, R.; Kovacs, G.; Law, J.A.; Marshall, S.D.; Myatra, S.N.; et al. Preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation: A consensus guideline from the Project for Universal Management of Airways and international airway societies. Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 1395–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ahmad, I.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Bhagrath, R.; Hodzovic, I.; McNarry, A.F.; Mir, F.; O’Sullivan, E.P.; Patel, A.; Stacey, M.; Vaughan, D. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for awake tracheal intubation (ATI) in adults. Anaesthesia 2020, 75, 509–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Alhomary, M.; Ramadan, E.; Curran, E.; Walsh, S.R. Videolaryngoscopy vs. fibreoptic bronchoscopy for awake tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2018, 73, 1151–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Aziz, M.F.; Bayman, E.O.; Van Tienderen, M.M.; Todd, M.M.; StAGE Investigator Group; Brambrink, A.M. Predictors of difficult videolaryngoscopy with GlideScope(R) or C-MAC(R) with D-blade: Secondary analysis from a large comparative videolaryngoscopy trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Aziz, M.F.; Healy, D.; Kheterpal, S.; Fu, R.F.; Dillman, D.; Brambrink, A.M. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: An analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology 2011, 114, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Diaz-Gomez, J.L.; Satyapriya, A.; Satyapriya, S.V.; Mascha, E.J.; Yang, D.; Krakovitz, P.; Mossad, E.B.; Eikermann, M.; Doyle, D.J. Standard clinical risk factors for difficult laryngoscopy are not independent predictors of intubation success with the GlideScope. J. Clin. Anesth. 2011, 23, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cook, F.; Lobo, D.; Martin, M.; Imbert, N.; Grati, H.; Daami, N.; Cherait, C.; Saidi, N.E.; Abbay, K.; Jaubert, J.; et al. Prospective validation of a new airway management algorithm and predictive features of intubation difficulty. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019, 122, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Osborn, I.P.; Behringer, E.C.; Kramer, D.C. Difficult airway management following supratentorial craniotomy: A useful maneuver with a new device. Anesth. Analg. 2007, 105, 552–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Russo, S.G.; Weiss, M.; Eich, C. Video laryngoscopy ole! Time to say good bye to direct and flexible intubation? Anaesthesist 2012, 61, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pieters, B.M.A.; Maas, E.H.A.; Knape, J.T.A.; van Zundert, A.A.J. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1532–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cordovani, D.; Russell, T.; Wee, W.; Suen, A.; Cooper, R.M. Measurement of forces applied using a Macintosh direct laryngoscope compared with a Glidescope video laryngoscope in patients with predictors of difficult laryngoscopy: A randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2019, 36, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Carvalho, C.C. Hyperangulated vs. Macintosh videolaryngoscopes for efficacy of orotracheal intubation in adults: A pairwise meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 1172–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jiang, J.; Ma, D.X.; Li, B.; Wu, A.S.; Xue, F.S. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019, 52, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barclay-Steuart, A.; Grosshennig, H.L.; Sasu, P.; Wunsch, V.A.; Stadlhofer, R.; Berger, J.; Stark, M.; Sehner, S.; Zollner, C.; Petzoldt, M. Transnasal Videoendoscopy for Preoperative Airway Risk Stratification: Development and Validation of a Multivariable Risk Prediction Model. Anesth. Analg. 2023, 136, 1164–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sasu, P.B.; Pansa, J.I.; Stadlhofer, R.; Wunsch, V.A.; Loock, K.; Buscher, E.K.; Dankert, A.; Ozga, A.K.; Zollner, C.; Petzoldt, M. Nasendoscopy to Predict Difficult Videolaryngoscopy: A Multivariable Model Development Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Law, J.A.; Duggan, L.V.; Asselin, M.; Baker, P.; Crosby, E.; Downey, A.; Hung, O.R.; Kovacs, G.; Lemay, F.; Noppens, R.; et al. Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: Part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the patient with an anticipated difficult airway. Can. J. Anaesth. 2021, 68, 1405–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Macintosh, R.R. A new laryngoscope. Lancet 1943, 241, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Reynolds, E.C.; Crowther, N.; Corbett, L.; Cominos, T.; Thomas, V.; Cook, T.M.; Kelly, F.E. Improving laryngoscopy technique and success with the C-MAC(R) D blade: Development and dissemination of the ‘Bath C-MAC D blade guide’. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, e162–e164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Levitan, R.M.; Ochroch, E.A.; Kush, S.; Shofer, F.S.; Hollander, J.E. Assessment of airway visualization: Validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Acad. Emerg. Med. 1998, 5, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Han, R.; Tremper, K.K.; Kheterpal, S.; O’Reilly, M. Grading scale for mask ventilation. Anesthesiology 2004, 101, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cook, T.M. A new practical classification of laryngeal view. Anaesthesia 2000, 55, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cormack, R.S.; Lehane, J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984, 39, 1105–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yentis, S.M.; Lee, D.J. Evaluation of an improved scoring system for the grading of direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1998, 53, 1041–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zheng, G.; Feng, L.; Lewis, C.M. A data review of airway management in patients with oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer: A single-institution experience. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019, 19, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Pourfakhr, P.; Ahangari, A.; Etezadi, F.; Moharari, R.S.; Ahmadi, A.; Saeedi, N.; Najafi, A. 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, 1641–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Apfelbaum, J.L.; Hagberg, C.A.; Connis, R.T.; Abdelmalak, B.B.; Agarkar, M.; Dutton, R.P.; Fiadjoe, J.E.; Greif, R.; Klock, P.A.; Mercier, D.; et al. 2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2022, 136, 31–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rosenblatt, W.H.; Yanez, N.D. A Decision Tree Approach to Airway Management Pathways in the 2022 Difficult Airway Algorithm of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Anesth. Analg. 2022, 134, 910–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Langeron, O.; Bourgain, J.L.; Francon, D.; Amour, J.; Baillard, C.; Bouroche, G.; Chollet Rivier, M.; Lenfant, F.; Plaud, B.; Schoettker, P.; et al. Difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2018, 37, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cooper, R.M.; Pacey, J.A.; Bishop, M.J.; McCluskey, S.A. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can. J. Anaesth. 2005, 52, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Joshi, R.; Hypes, C.D.; Greenberg, J.; Snyder, L.; Malo, J.; Bloom, J.W.; Chopra, H.; Sakles, J.C.; Mosier, J.M. Difficult Airway Characteristics Associated with First-Attempt Failure at Intubation Using Video Laryngoscopy in the Intensive Care Unit. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2017, 14, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tremblay, M.H.; Williams, S.; Robitaille, A.; Drolet, P. Poor visualization during direct laryngoscopy and high upper lip bite test score are predictors of difficult intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Anesth. Analg. 2008, 106, 1495–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Jong, A.; Pouzeratte, Y.; Laplace, A.; Normanno, M.; Rolle, A.; Verzilli, D.; Perrigault, P.F.; Colson, P.; Capdevila, X.; Molinari, N.; et al. Macintosh Videolaryngoscope for Intubation in the Operating Room: A Comparative Quality Improvement Project. Anesth. Analg. 2021, 132, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 05096 g001
Figure 1. GlideScopeTM Spectrum LoPro blades, profile, angles and diameters (with permission from Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA).
Figure 1. GlideScopeTM Spectrum LoPro blades, profile, angles and diameters (with permission from Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA).
Jcm 12 05096 g001
Jcm 12 05096 g002
Figure 2. Study flow.
Figure 2. Study flow.
Jcm 12 05096 g002
Jcm 12 05096 g003
Figure 3. Boxplots showing pairwise comparisons between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations with the GlideScope Spetrum™ (left plot) and between individuals with pre-induction inter-incisor gaps ≥2.0 cm and <2.0 cm (right plot) regarding the time to the best glottis view (blue boxes) and time to intubation (red boxes).
Figure 3. Boxplots showing pairwise comparisons between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations with the GlideScope Spetrum™ (left plot) and between individuals with pre-induction inter-incisor gaps ≥2.0 cm and <2.0 cm (right plot) regarding the time to the best glottis view (blue boxes) and time to intubation (red boxes).
Jcm 12 05096 g003
Jcm 12 05096 g004
Figure 4. Scatter plots illustrating the relationship between the ‘time to best glottis view’ (left) or ‘intubation time’ (right) with the GlideScope SpectrumTM on the x-axis and inter-incisor distance before anesthesia induction in cm on the y-axis.
Figure 4. Scatter plots illustrating the relationship between the ‘time to best glottis view’ (left) or ‘intubation time’ (right) with the GlideScope SpectrumTM on the x-axis and inter-incisor distance before anesthesia induction in cm on the y-axis.
Jcm 12 05096 g004
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics.
Variables(n = 30)
Sociodemographic data
Age (years)51.0 (27.8; 72.5)
Body mass index (kg m−2)24.7 (20.7; 27.0)
Sex (male)15 (50.0)
Preconditions
ASA
I5 (16.7)
II14 (46.7)
III11 (36.7)
IV0 (0.0)
History of previous difficult airway management12 (40.0)
SARI score5.17 ± 2.0
Wilson score3.3 ± 1.8
Mallampati score
Class I or II0 (0.0)
Class III11 (36.7)
Class IV19 (63.3)
Neck mobility
>90°12 (40.0)
80–90°13 (43.3)
<80°5 (16.7)
Upper lip bite test
Class I3 (10.0)
Class II7 (23.3)
Class III20 (66.7)
Thyromental distance
>6.5 cm18 (60.0)
6–6.5 cm4 (13.3)
<6.5 cm8 (26.7)
Inter-incisor gap pre-induction *2.2 ± 0.5
Inter-incisor gap post-induction *2.3 ± 0.5
Retrognathia6 (20.0)
Mandibula protrusion6 (20.0)
Prominent incisor5 (16.7)
Pharyngolaryngeal lesions5 (16.7)
Dysphonia or dysphagia2 (6.7)
Origin of restricted mouth opening (multiple choices possible)
Pain13 (43.3)
Inflammation3 (10.0)
Jaw fractures8 (26.7)
Temporomandibular joint dysfunction5 (16.7)
Cervicofacial flap for head and neck reconstruction5 (16.7)
Tumor8 (26.7)
Craniofacial malformations1 (3.3)
The dataset of this analysis is complete without missing values; values are mean ± SD or number (proportion), whichever is appropriate. * inter-incisor gaps were measured before anesthesia induction and after anesthesia induction with neuromuscular blockade. Abbreviations: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiology classification; SARI: simplified airway risk index.
Table 2. Outcome measures.
Table 2. Outcome measures.
Type of IntubationsInter-Incisor Gap
VariableOverallOral
(n = 9)		Nasal
(n = 21)		p≥2.0 cm
(n = 20)		<2.0 cm
(n = 10)		p
Success and attempts
Overall successful
intubation		30 (1.00)9 (1.00)21 (1.00)N/A20 (1.00)10 (1.00)N/A
First attempt success27 (0.90)9 (1.00)18 (0.86)0.08319 (0.95)8 (0.80)0.314
Multiple laryngoscopy
attempts		2 (0.07)0 (0.00)2 (0.10)0.1621 (0.05)1 (0.10)0.619
Multiple intubation
attempts		1 (0.03)0 (0.0)1 (0.05)0.5220 (0.00)1 (0.10)0.343
Glottis exposure with videolaryngoscopy
Glottis view grade # 0.048 0.019
Vocal cords completely
visible (grade 1)		15 (0.50)2 (0.22)13 (0.62) 13 (0.65)2 (0.20)
Part of the cords visible (2a)15 (0.50)7 (0.78)8 (0.38) 7 (0.35)8 (0.80)
Posterior cords only just
visible (2b)		0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)0 (0.00)
Cords not visible
(2c or worse)		0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)0 (0.00)
POGO86.0 (76.5; 95.5)77.0 (50.0; 84.0)88.2 (79.0; 97.5)0.01289.0 (78.5; 97.0)77.5 (73.8; 88.5)0.567
VIDIAC score 0.266 0.266
22 (0.07)1 (0.11)1 (0.05) 1 (0.05)1 (0.10)
≥31 (0.03)1 (0.11)0 (0.00) 0 (0.09)1 (0.10)
Time to best view [s]12 (8; 17)10 (8; 15)12 (8; 18)0.47711 (8; 13)18 (6; 35)0.148
Intubation time [s]44 (33; 78)33 (25; 39)55 (39; 94)0.04936 (32; 62)59 (44; 104)0.163
Difficult mask
ventilation 1		8 (0.27)1 (0.11)7 (0.33)0.1614 (0.20)4 (0.40)0.258
Adjuncts and optimization maneuvers
BURP2 (0.07)1 (0.11)1 (0.05)0.5391 (0.05)1 (0.10)0.619
Magill forceps4 (0.13)0 (0.00)4 (0.19)0.0423 (0.15)1 (0.10)0.716
Transition to a
rescue technique		0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)N/A0 (0.00)0 (0.00)N/A
Airway-related
adverse events 2		0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)N/A0 (0.00)0 (0.00)N/A
Recommendations for future anesthetics after tracheal intubation
Awake bronchoscopic
intubation recommended		1 (0.03)0 (0.00)1 (0.05)0.5220 (0.00)1 (0.10)0.343
Airway alert card issued9 (0.30)4 (0.44)5 (0.24)0.2743 (0.15)6 (0.60)0.028
Subjective rating of the airway operator on visual analogue scale (0–100, lower values better)
Quality of glottis
exposure (0–100)		10.0 (5.0; 21.3)25.0 (7.5; 27.5)5.0 (3.0; 10.0)0.08010.0 (5.0; 17.5)15.0 (3.80; 36.3)0.206
Ease of tube placement
(0–100)		27.5 (15.0; 40.0)25.0 (17.5; 37.5)30.0 (12.5; 40.0)0.67220.0 (10.0; 30.0)35.0 (28.8; 53.8)0.007
Overall difficulty of airway management (0–100)20.0 (10.0; 31.3)20.0 (15.0; 30.0)15.0 (10.0; 35.0)0.78215.0 (10.0; 25.0)25.0 (10.0; 62.5)0.087
The dataset of this analysis is complete without missing values. Values are median (IQR) or number (proportion), whichever is appropriate. Reported p-values result from t-tests. 1 Difficult face mask ventilation was defined as Hun grad 2 or more [37]. 2 Airway-related adverse events are hypoxia, aspiration, swelling of the glottis, laryngospasm, dental or soft tissue injury and oral bleeding [2]; # grading of the glottis view gathered by videolaryngoscopy as proposed by Petzoldt and coworkers [7,8] (modified after [38,39,40]), Abbreviations: BURP: backward, upward and rightward pressure; POGO: percentage of glottis opening; VIDIAC: videolaryngoscopic intubation and difficult airway classification; VL: videolaryngoscopy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popal, Z.; Dankert, A.; Hilz, P.; Wünsch, V.A.; Grensemann, J.; Plümer, L.; Nawrath, L.; Krause, L.; Zöllner, C.; Petzoldt, M. Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Severely Restricted Mouth Opening—A Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5096. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155096

AMA Style

Popal Z, Dankert A, Hilz P, Wünsch VA, Grensemann J, Plümer L, Nawrath L, Krause L, Zöllner C, Petzoldt M. Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Severely Restricted Mouth Opening—A Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(15):5096. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popal, Zohal, André Dankert, Philip Hilz, Viktor Alexander Wünsch, Jörn Grensemann, Lili Plümer, Lars Nawrath, Linda Krause, Christian Zöllner, and Martin Petzoldt. 2023. "Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Severely Restricted Mouth Opening—A Pilot Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 15: 5096. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155096

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop