Tracheal tube introducer-associated airway trauma: a systematic review

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-07-28 DOI:10.1111/anae.16379
Adam J. Boulton, Edward Smith, Ambreen Yasin, Joseph Moreton, Cyprian Mendonca
{"title":"Tracheal tube introducer-associated airway trauma: a systematic review","authors":"Adam J. Boulton,&nbsp;Edward Smith,&nbsp;Ambreen Yasin,&nbsp;Joseph Moreton,&nbsp;Cyprian Mendonca","doi":"10.1111/anae.16379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Tracheal tube introducers are recommended in airway management guidelines and are used increasingly as videolaryngoscopy becomes more widespread. This systematic review aimed to summarise the published literature concerning tracheal tube introducer-associated airway trauma.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched using pre-determined criteria. Two authors independently assessed search results and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 16 randomised controlled trials and five observational studies involving 10,797 patients. There was heterogeneity in patient characteristics, airway manipulation, and airway trauma definition and measurement. One study investigated hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy. The standard stylet was the most commonly reported introducer, followed by bougie and stylets with additional features such as video or lighted tip. Airway trauma resulted in low harm and most frequently involved injuries to the upper airway, followed by laryngeal and tracheobronchial injuries. Eighteen studies were comparative and reported a reduction in airway trauma incidence when an introducer was used, with the exception of the standard stylet. Median (IQR [range]) pooled incidence of airway trauma associated with standard stylets was 13.1% (4.2–31.4 [0.5–79.2])% and with bougies was 5.4% (0.4–49.9 [0.0–68.0])%. The risk of bias of included studies was variable and many randomised trials were found to be at high risk due to non-robust measurement of the outcome.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Stylets might be associated with an increased risk of airway trauma compared with other devices or when no stylet was used, though the quality of evidence is modest. However, other introducers appear to be safe and reduce the risk of airway trauma.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16379","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16379","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Tracheal tube introducers are recommended in airway management guidelines and are used increasingly as videolaryngoscopy becomes more widespread. This systematic review aimed to summarise the published literature concerning tracheal tube introducer-associated airway trauma.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched using pre-determined criteria. Two authors independently assessed search results and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments.

Results

We included 16 randomised controlled trials and five observational studies involving 10,797 patients. There was heterogeneity in patient characteristics, airway manipulation, and airway trauma definition and measurement. One study investigated hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy. The standard stylet was the most commonly reported introducer, followed by bougie and stylets with additional features such as video or lighted tip. Airway trauma resulted in low harm and most frequently involved injuries to the upper airway, followed by laryngeal and tracheobronchial injuries. Eighteen studies were comparative and reported a reduction in airway trauma incidence when an introducer was used, with the exception of the standard stylet. Median (IQR [range]) pooled incidence of airway trauma associated with standard stylets was 13.1% (4.2–31.4 [0.5–79.2])% and with bougies was 5.4% (0.4–49.9 [0.0–68.0])%. The risk of bias of included studies was variable and many randomised trials were found to be at high risk due to non-robust measurement of the outcome.

Conclusions

Stylets might be associated with an increased risk of airway trauma compared with other devices or when no stylet was used, though the quality of evidence is modest. However, other introducers appear to be safe and reduce the risk of airway trauma.

Abstract Image

气管导管相关气道创伤:系统性综述。
背景:气管导管是气道管理指南中推荐的导管,随着视频喉镜的普及,气管导管的使用也越来越广泛。本系统综述旨在总结已发表的有关气管导管相关气道创伤的文献:方法:采用预先确定的标准对 PubMed、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 数据库进行检索。两位作者独立评估了检索结果,并进行了数据提取和偏倚风险评估:我们纳入了 16 项随机对照试验和 5 项观察性研究,涉及 10,797 名患者。在患者特征、气道操作、气道创伤定义和测量方面存在异质性。其中一项研究对超切口视频喉镜进行了调查。据报道,最常用的导引器是标准导引器,其次是布氏导引器和带有视频或照明尖端等附加功能的导引器。气道创伤造成的伤害较低,最常见的是上气道损伤,其次是喉部和气管支气管损伤。有 18 项研究进行了比较,结果表明使用导引器可降低气道创伤发生率,但标准导引针除外。与标准引流管相关的气道创伤发生率中位数(IQR [范围])为 13.1% (4.2-31.4 [0.5-79.2])%,而与 Bougies 相关的气道创伤发生率中位数(IQR [范围])为 5.4% (0.4-49.9 [0.0-68.0])%。纳入研究的偏倚风险各不相同,许多随机试验因结果测量不可靠而被认为存在高风险:尽管证据质量不高,但与其他装置相比,或在未使用气道针的情况下,气道针可能会增加气道创伤的风险。不过,其他导引器似乎是安全的,可以降低气道创伤的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信