| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Correspondence |
Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, E-mail: mkfchoo{at}yahoo.co.nz
To the Editor:
We were interested to read the first report of complications arising from routine use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope (GVL)1 and describe a similar complication associated with the device. A 62-yr-old female presented for right ureteroscopy for renal stone treatment under general anaesthesia. A 7.5-mm internal diameter cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT) was used for intubation with the GVL. After uncomplicated induction of anesthesia, a standard midline approach with the GVL was used, and a stylet facilitated tracheal intubation. Other than encountering slight resistance as the ETT passed the laryngeal inlet, the remainder of the intubation sequence was unremarkable. Of special note, no resistance was encountered while passing the ETT into the oropharyngeal cavity.
However, at the end of the case, it was discovered that the ETT had perforated the right palatopharyngeal fold (Figure
). An otorhinolaryngologist was consulted and hemostasis was established with electrocautery; there was minimal bleeding. Thereafter, residual neuromuscular block was reversed, the patient was allowed to awaken while breathing 100% oxygen, and her trachea was extubated. The patient experienced a sore throat postoperatively, but had an uneventful recovery. She remained in hospital overnight for observation, and was discharged the following day with no sequalae. At outpatient follow-up six weeks later, good wound healing of the palatopharyngeal laceration was observed, and throat discomfort had fully resolved.
|
In conclusion, complications for the GVL, while rare, are now being reported. Such complications mandate vigilance on the part of the anesthesiologist while the ETT is advanced, with consideration of preventive maneuvers as described.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication December 21, 2006.
References
1 Cooper RM. Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope. Can J Anesth 2007; 54: 547.
2 Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 3814.
3 Lim TJ, Lim Y, Liu EH. Evaluation of ease of intubation with the GlideScope® or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthetists in simulated easy and difficult laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1803.[Medline]
4 Cuchillo JV, Rodriguez MA. Considerations aimed at facilitating the use of the new GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (Letter). Can J Anesth 2005; 52: 661.
5 Doyle DJ, Ramachandran M, Zura A, Ryckman JV, Abdelmalak B. The Glidescope video laryngoscope: clinical experience in 747 cases. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: A842 (abstract).
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] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |