U Linstedt1, F Möller, N Grote, M Zenz, A Prengel. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Therapy, Diako Hospital, Flensburg, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We use an intubating laryngeal mask (ILM) in preference to an endotracheal tube (ETT) as the ventilatory device during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to overcome potential problems such as difficult ventilation, accidental extubation, damage of the ETT or of the bronchoscope, and need for additional assistant to secure the airway. We report our experience with this method. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, PDT was performed using the ILM in 86 patients. The insertion of the ILM, the quality of ventilation, and the view of the tracheal puncture site were rated as: 'very good', 'good', 'difficult', and 'not possible with ILM'. RESULTS: The bronchoscope was not damaged during any case, and all PDTs were performed by two physicians, without the need for an additional assistant. PDTs with ILM were successful in 95% of the patients (n=82). The ratings were 'very good' or 'good' in 80% of cases with regards to ventilation, in 90% for identification of relevant structures and tracheal puncture site, and in 85% for the view inside the trachea during PDT. Tracheal re-intubation was required for inadequate ventilation with ILM in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of this procedure were lack of damage to the bronchoscope, the need for two instead of three persons to perform the PDT, and the excellent view inside the trachea. We recommend the ILM as a standard device for ventilation during bronchoscope-guided PDT.
BACKGROUND: We use an intubating laryngeal mask (ILM) in preference to an endotracheal tube (ETT) as the ventilatory device during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to overcome potential problems such as difficult ventilation, accidental extubation, damage of the ETT or of the bronchoscope, and need for additional assistant to secure the airway. We report our experience with this method. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, PDT was performed using the ILM in 86 patients. The insertion of the ILM, the quality of ventilation, and the view of the tracheal puncture site were rated as: 'very good', 'good', 'difficult', and 'not possible with ILM'. RESULTS: The bronchoscope was not damaged during any case, and all PDTs were performed by two physicians, without the need for an additional assistant. PDTs with ILM were successful in 95% of the patients (n=82). The ratings were 'very good' or 'good' in 80% of cases with regards to ventilation, in 90% for identification of relevant structures and tracheal puncture site, and in 85% for the view inside the trachea during PDT. Tracheal re-intubation was required for inadequate ventilation with ILM in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of this procedure were lack of damage to the bronchoscope, the need for two instead of three persons to perform the PDT, and the excellent view inside the trachea. We recommend the ILM as a standard device for ventilation during bronchoscope-guided PDT.