Does Suction Catheter-Guided Nasotracheal Intubation Reduce Nasal Bleeding?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Pattamon Leelachaikul, Duangdee Rummasak, Thepharat Lertwisettheerakun, Jirayus Akaraprasertkul
{"title":"Does Suction Catheter-Guided Nasotracheal Intubation Reduce Nasal Bleeding?","authors":"Pattamon Leelachaikul, Duangdee Rummasak, Thepharat Lertwisettheerakun, Jirayus Akaraprasertkul","doi":"10.1016/j.joms.2025.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasal bleeding is common during nasotracheal intubation (NTI) and can complicate the procedure. It is unclear if suction catheter use reduces complications, including bleeding.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose was to measure and compare adverse outcomes of suction catheter-guided nasal passage to conventional NTI technique.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting, and sample: </strong>A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Mahidol University Dental Hospital, Thailand. Patients (18-65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-2 and normal body mass index) scheduled for elective surgery requiring NTI were recruited, excluding those with anticipated difficult intubation or nasal abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Predictor variable: </strong>The predictor variable was intubation technique (suction catheter-guided or conventional intubation).</p><p><strong>Main outcome variables: </strong>Primary outcomes were incidence and extent of bleeding (nasal bleeding observed at posterior pharynx), graded during intubation. Secondary outcomes were ease of intubation, first-pass success, number of attempts, and nasal passage time.</p><p><strong>Covariates: </strong>Covariates included demographic (age, sex), perioperative (body mass index, tobacco, alcohol, mild allergic rhinitis), and operative data (nostril side).</p><p><strong>Analyses: </strong>Categorical data were compared using Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> or Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were compared using independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 52 subjects (26 per group), mean age 29.8 ± 10.0 years (P = .4); 31 (59.6%) were female (P = .8). No significant differences were found between guided and control groups in incidence of bleeding (13 [50%] vs 14 [53.8%], P = .8), extent of bleeding (grade 0-3, respectively: 13 [50.0%], 3 [11.5%], 3 [11.5%], 7 [26.9%] vs 12 [46.2%], 3 [11.5%], 4 [15.4%], 7 [26.9%], P = 1.0), ease of navigation (P = .6), first-pass success (25 [96.2%] vs 22 [84.6%], P = .4), or number of attempts (P = .5). Nasal passage time was longer in the guided group (10.3 [interquartile range: 8.9-12.2] vs 5.4 [4.2-7.7] seconds, P < .001), though not clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Suction catheter-guided nasal passage during NTI under general anesthesia does not statistically reduce nasal bleeding or improve navigability in patients without nasal bleeding risk factors or anticipated difficulties. Nasal passage time is longer in the guided group, but without adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":16612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.05.001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nasal bleeding is common during nasotracheal intubation (NTI) and can complicate the procedure. It is unclear if suction catheter use reduces complications, including bleeding.

Purpose: The purpose was to measure and compare adverse outcomes of suction catheter-guided nasal passage to conventional NTI technique.

Study design, setting, and sample: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Mahidol University Dental Hospital, Thailand. Patients (18-65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-2 and normal body mass index) scheduled for elective surgery requiring NTI were recruited, excluding those with anticipated difficult intubation or nasal abnormalities.

Predictor variable: The predictor variable was intubation technique (suction catheter-guided or conventional intubation).

Main outcome variables: Primary outcomes were incidence and extent of bleeding (nasal bleeding observed at posterior pharynx), graded during intubation. Secondary outcomes were ease of intubation, first-pass success, number of attempts, and nasal passage time.

Covariates: Covariates included demographic (age, sex), perioperative (body mass index, tobacco, alcohol, mild allergic rhinitis), and operative data (nostril side).

Analyses: Categorical data were compared using Pearson's χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were compared using independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The sample included 52 subjects (26 per group), mean age 29.8 ± 10.0 years (P = .4); 31 (59.6%) were female (P = .8). No significant differences were found between guided and control groups in incidence of bleeding (13 [50%] vs 14 [53.8%], P = .8), extent of bleeding (grade 0-3, respectively: 13 [50.0%], 3 [11.5%], 3 [11.5%], 7 [26.9%] vs 12 [46.2%], 3 [11.5%], 4 [15.4%], 7 [26.9%], P = 1.0), ease of navigation (P = .6), first-pass success (25 [96.2%] vs 22 [84.6%], P = .4), or number of attempts (P = .5). Nasal passage time was longer in the guided group (10.3 [interquartile range: 8.9-12.2] vs 5.4 [4.2-7.7] seconds, P < .001), though not clinically significant.

Conclusions and relevance: Suction catheter-guided nasal passage during NTI under general anesthesia does not statistically reduce nasal bleeding or improve navigability in patients without nasal bleeding risk factors or anticipated difficulties. Nasal passage time is longer in the guided group, but without adverse events.

吸管引导下的鼻气管插管能减少鼻出血吗?
背景:鼻气管插管(NTI)过程中鼻腔出血是常见的,并且会使手术复杂化。目前尚不清楚使用吸引管是否能减少并发症,包括出血。目的:目的是测量和比较吸痰引导的鼻道与传统NTI技术的不良后果。研究设计、环境和样本:在泰国玛希隆大学牙科医院进行了一项双盲、随机对照试验。招募计划进行选择性手术需要NTI的患者(18-65岁,美国麻醉医师协会身体状态1-2,体重指数正常),排除预期插管困难或鼻腔异常的患者。预测变量:预测变量为插管技术(吸引引导或常规插管)。主要结局变量:主要结局是插管期间出血的发生率和程度(后咽观察到鼻出血)。次要结果为插管难易程度、首次通过成功率、插管次数和鼻腔通过时间。协变量:协变量包括人口统计学(年龄、性别)、围手术期(体重指数、吸烟、饮酒、轻度变应性鼻炎)和手术资料(鼻孔侧)。分析:分类资料采用Pearson χ2或Fisher精确检验进行比较。连续资料比较采用独立t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验。P值< 0.05认为有统计学意义。结果:共纳入受试者52例(每组26例),平均年龄29.8±10.0岁(P = 0.4);女性31例,占59.6% (P = 0.8)。引导组与对照组在出血发生率(13例[50%]vs 14例[53.8%],P = .8)、出血程度(0-3级分别为:13例[50.0%]、3例[11.5%]、3例[11.5%]、3例[15.4%]、7例[26.9%]vs 12例[46.2%]、3例[11.5%]、4例[15.4%]、7例[26.9%],P = 1.0)、导航便便性(P = .6)、首次通过成功率(25例[96.2%]vs 22例[84.6%],P = .4)、尝试次数(P = .5)等方面均无显著差异。引导组鼻通过时间更长(10.3[四分位数间距:8.9-12.2]vs 5.4[4.2-7.7]秒,P < 0.001),但无临床意义。结论及相关性:在全麻下NTI患者中,无鼻出血危险因素或预期困难的患者中,吸痰导管引导下的鼻通道并不能减少鼻出血或改善可通航性。引导组鼻通时间较长,但无不良事件发生。
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
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: This monthly journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Practice-applicable articles help develop the methods used to handle dentoalveolar surgery, facial injuries and deformities, TMJ disorders, oral cancer, jaw reconstruction, anesthesia and analgesia. The journal also includes specifics on new instruments and diagnostic equipment and modern therapeutic drugs and devices. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is recommended for first or priority subscription by the Dental Section of the Medical Library Association.
×
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