Fibreoptic vs videolaryngoscopic (C-MAC(®) D-BLADE) nasal awake intubation under local anaesthesia.

Abstract

Numerous indirect laryngoscopes have been introduced into clinical practice and their use for tracheal intubation under local anaesthesia has been described. However, a study comparing indirect laryngoscopic vs fibreoptic intubation under local anaesthesia and sedation appears lacking. Therefore, we evaluated both techniques in 100 patients with an anticipated difficult nasal intubation time for intubation the primary outcome. We also assessed success rate, glottic view, Ramsey score, and patients' and anaesthetists' satisfaction. The median (IQR [range]) time for intubation was significantly shorter with the videolaryngoscope with 38 (24-65 [11-420]) s vs 94 (48-323 [19-1020]) s (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the success rate of intubation (96% for both techniques; p > 0.9999) and satisfaction of the anaesthetists and patients. We conclude that in anticipated difficult nasal intubation a videolaryngoscope represents an acceptable alternative to fibreoptic intubation.