This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooper, R. M.

Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope

[Complications suite à l’utilisation du vidéolaryngoscope GlideScope®]

From the Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Richard M. Cooper, Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth St., 3EN-421, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. Phone: 416 340-5164; Fax: 416 340-3698; E-mail: richard.cooper{at}uhn.on.ca

Purpose: Two cases are presented wherein the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) facilitated laryngeal exposure and successful endotracheal intubation, but resulted in pharyngeal injury.

Clinical features: GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy was performed in two female patients, whose airways were anticipated to present difficulties for direct laryngoscopy. In the first case, following induction of anesthesia, moderate difficulty was encountered in directing the endotracheal tube (ETT) into the patient’s larynx. In the second case, minimal difficulty with the GVL was experienced, and no problems were identified with airway instrumentation until the drapes covering the patient’s face were removed. In both instances, the ETT had passed through the right palatopharyngeal arch, requiring suturing in the first patient, and electrocautery in the second patient.

Conclusion: There have been no previously published reports of injuries related to GlideScope® laryngoscopy, but perforation of the palatopharyngeal arch occurring in two patients demonstrates a rare but potentially important complication of the GVL. Strategies to minimize this complication are considered.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M.-H. Tremblay, S. Williams, A. Robitaille, and P. Drolet Poor Visualization During Direct Laryngoscopy and High Upper Lip Bite Test Score Are Predictors of Difficult Intubation with the GlideScope(R) Videolaryngoscope Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1495 - 1500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Cho and H. K. Kil A maneuver to facilitate endotracheal intubation using the GlideScope(R) Can J Anesth, January 1, 2008; 55(1): 56 - 57. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. P. Turkstra, C. C. Harle, K. P. Armstrong, P. M. Armstrong, R. A. Cherry, J. Hoogstra, and P. M. Jones The GlideScope(R)-specific rigid stylet and standard malleable stylet are equally effective for GlideScope(R) use: [Le mandrin rigide specifique au GlideScope(R) et le mandrin flexible standard sont tous deux aussi efficaces pour l'utilisation avec le GlideScope(R)] Can J Anesth, November 1, 2007; 54(11): 891 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Cross, J. Cytryn, and K. K. Cheng Perforation of the soft palate using the GlideScope(R) videolaryngoscope Can J Anesth, July 1, 2007; 54(7): 588 - 589. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K.F. Choo, V. S.T. Yeo, and J. J. See Another complication associated with videolaryngoscopy Can J Anesth, April 1, 2007; 54(4): 322 - 324. [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: