Next Article in Journal
Towards a Secure Technology-Driven Architecture for Smart Health Insurance Systems: An Empirical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Hearing Health: A Cross-Sectional Study of Determinants in a Metropolitan Area
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 16
10.3390/healthcare11162256
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Styletubation in Bariatric Surgery: A Case Report

by
Bor-Gang Wu
1,
Hsiang-Ning Luk
2,3,*,
Jason Zhensheng Qu
4 and
Alan Shikani
5,6
1
Department of Surgery, Hualien Tzu-Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation and School of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien 970, Taiwan
2
Department of Anesthesia, Hualien Tzu-Chi Hospital, Hualien 970, Taiwan
3
Bio-Math Laboratory, Department of Financial Engineering, Providence University, Taichung 433719, Taiwan
4
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
5
Division of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, LifeBridge Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21040, USA
6
Division of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(16), 2256; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162256
Submission received: 19 June 2023 / Revised: 27 July 2023 / Accepted: 9 August 2023 / Published: 10 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Critical Care)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Direct laryngoscopes and videolaryngoscopes are the dominant endotracheal intubation tools. The styletubation technique (using a video-assisted intubating stylet) has shown its advantages in terms of short intubation time, high success rate, less required stimulation, and operator satisfaction. The learning curve can be steep but is easily overcome if technical pitfalls are avoided. Conditions that make styletubation challenging include secretions/blood, short/stiff neck, restricted mouth opening and cervical spine mobility, anatomical abnormalities over head and neck regions, obesity, etc. In this clinical report, we present the effectiveness and efficiency of the routine use of the styletubation for tracheal intubation in a super-super-obese patient (BMI 103 kg/m2) undergoing bariatric surgery with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

1. Introduction

Obesity, an increasing medical problem worldwide, is measured through body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 and further categorized into grade 1 (BMI 30 to <35 kg/m2), grade 2 (BMI 35 to <40 kg/m2), and grade 3 (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m 2). The prevalence of super obesity (SO, BMI > 50.0 kg/m2) and super-super obesity (SSO, BMI > 60 kg/m2) has also increased during recent years. Bariatric surgery is the most effective therapy to treat this and is sometimes the last resort in efforts to lose weight. Expectedly, anesthesia and peri-operative management for bariatric and non-bariatric surgeries in all categories of the obese patient populations have become focus issues up for discussion [1,2,3,4]. Among all the relevant peri-operative management, airway management in such obese populations has been extensively discussed in the literature. Airway management, particularly intubation, remains the most challenging part of intraoperative care [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13].
The severity of obesity is related to the incidence of difficult airway [14], although there some controversies surrounding this [15]. The disagreement may arise from the different criteria for defining difficult intubation. Examples of the criteria for predicting difficult intubation are body mass index (BMI), neck circumference, degree of neck mobility, width of mouth opening, etc. [16]. Different definitions for difficult airway were used, such as difficult laryngoscopy (e.g., impossible to visualize any portion of the vocal cords after multiple attempts at laryngoscopy) or difficult tracheal intubation (e.g., requires multiple attempts to intubate) [17]. Others might use the intubation difficult scaly (IDS) or its modified version, combined with additional parameters, to predict/identify the occurrence of difficult airway.
Since videolaryngoscopes (VL) were invented over two decades ago, the technology has been repeatedly compared with conventional direct laryngoscopes (DL). VL has been shown to possess certain advantages over the DL, including better glottic visualization, less need for the alignment of the airway axes, less force and cervical spine manipulation, shorter intubation time, and perhaps a higher first-pass success rate of intubation [18,19]. A plethora of literature show the advantages (e.g., easier, faster, less complications) of using VL in obese populations [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. However, the superiority of VL over DL, regarding all the outcome parameters (e.g., speed, safety, visualization, easiness), has not always been consistently confirmed in the obese patient population [31,32,33,34].
Various alternative intubation tools have been reported other than DL and VL [35]. Those tracheal intubating modalities include rigid BullardTM laryngoscope, flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB), optical stylet [36,37,38,39], or combined FOB with VL [40]. The video-assisted intubating stylet technique has recently been termed “styletubation”, in contrast to the concept of the conventional laryngoscopy [41]. With extensive experience of using styletubation recently in Taiwan, clinicians found this technique useful and easy to learn. In this case report, we present our experience of applying styletubation in a super-super-obese patient undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

2. Case Presentation

A 33-year-old man (height: 158 cm, weight: 258 kg, and body mass index (BMI): 103 kg/m2) was referred to our Center for Obesity & Metabolic Health, Hualien Tzu-Chi Medical Center. After entering a six-month program (medical weight loss, education, and counseling) that included treatment with orlistat and liraglutide, his body weight had been successfully reduced down to 227 kg (BMI, 90.9 kg/m2). Bioelectric impedance measurements showed the breakdown of the patient’s body composition: percentage body fat 54.1%, waist 200 cm, and hip 202 cm. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was scheduled. Medical history included hypertension (blood pressure 205/100 mmHg, heart rate 75 beats/min) and cellulitis over lower extremities. Losartan and amlodipine were prescribed in order to control high blood pressure. Pre-operative physical check-ups were conducted, including: a transthoracic echocardiogram, which revealed trivial tricuspid regurgitation, normal left ventricular motion (ejection fraction, 69%), no abnormal regional wall motion, and an estimated pulmonary artery pressure = 24 mmHg; a pulmonary function test, which revealed mild obstructive lung disease; abdominal echography, which revealed marked fatty liver; esophagogastroduodenoscopy, which revealed esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease; and polysomnography, which detected moderate obstructive sleep apnea (apnea/hyponea index: 22.5/h). The blood panel showed HbA1c 5.9% and hemoglobin 11.5 g/dL.
Pre-operative airway evaluation showed a neck circumference of 54 cm; interincisor distance of 4.5 cm; sternomental distance of 17 cm; thyromental distance of 8 cm; and Mallampati class IV (Figure 1). The observed apnea, high blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck circumference, and gender (STOP-BANG) created a score of 7. Body weights by definition were as follows: actual BW 227 kg, ideal BW 55 kg, adjusted BW 124 kg, and lean body weight 103 kg. Before the induction of anesthesia, the patient was placed on the operating table in a reverse Trendelenburg with ramp position (Figure 2). His head and torso were elevated such that his external auditory meatus and the sternal notch were approximately horizontally aligned. He received pure oxygen at a rate of 30 L/min with a high-flow nasal cannula for 15 min. The patient was monitored, as recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) standards, using pulse oximetry (SpO2), capnography (ETCO2), electrocardiogram (ECG), non-invasive (NIBP) and invasive arterial blood pressure examinations (A-line), neuromuscular blockade monitoring (train-of-four, TOF), bispectral index (BIS) and density spectral array (DSA) monitoring, a minimally invasive FloTrac system, cerebral oximetry, and nociception monitoring (Surgical Plethysmographic Index, SPI).
Pre-induction vital signs were blood pressure, 140/78 mmHg; heart rate, 53 per minute; respiratory rate, 16 per minute; and SpO2, 100%. The induction of anesthesia was started using glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, lidocaine 50 mg, and midazolam 5 mg, followed by the administration of propofol 180 mg and rocuronium 100 mg. An airway assistant performed the jaw-thrust maneuver and opened the patient’s mouth. A nasal–pharyngeal airway with a suction tube was inserted into the patient’s oropharyngeal space to clear the secretions. It also served as a guide for subsequent intubation. Tracheal intubation was performed via the styletubation technique (video-assisted intubating stylet). A standard endotracheal tube with 7.5 mm of internal diameter was used for intubation (Figure 3). The whole process was smooth (first-pass success) and swift (12 s) (Figure 4). The airway was then assessed by the capnography and chest auscultation. The ventilator strategy and parameters were set as follows: pressure control ventilation volume guaranteed (PCV-VG) with tidal volume: 650 mL; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP): 7 cm H2O; respiratory rate: 14–16 breaths/min; fresh gas flow rate: 2 L/min; fraction of inspired oxygen: 60%; maintenance partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide: 33–45 mmHg; and peak pressure: 28–33 mmHg.
Anesthesia was maintained using propofol (under target-controlled infusion, TCI Marsh model, Ce 2.0 μg/mL) and desflurane 4–6% (MAC 0.6–0.8, BIS 40–50). Fentanyl and rocuronium were supplemented based on the SPI and TOF values. In brief, the patient was then placed in a supine position and the 5-trocar method was used. A vertical gastrectomy was performed via resection of the greater curvature from the distal antrum (5 cm proximal to the pylorus) to the angle of His, using a 36-French bougie as a calibration tube. The resected part of the stomach was then extracted from the periumbilical trocar site. The staple line was reinforced using a running absorbable seromuscular suture. The anesthetic and surgical procedure lasted for 5 h. The SPI value from the intra-operative analgesic monitoring was monitored and remained around 50. During the emergence phase, desflurane was stopped while dexmedetomidine was maintained at 0.2 μg/kg/h. The patient regained spontaneous breath 2 min after the injection of sugammadex (400 mg). Then, dexmedetomidine infusion was stopped and he was extubated smoothly. The patient stayed in the intensive care unit overnight. Post-operative analgesia was achieved using parecoxib (40 mg, intravenous) and transversus abdominis plane block (TAP block, 40 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine). The prophylactic use of dexamethasone was performed. In the ICU, the patient reported no significant pain and did not request any rescue analgesia. Since the patient had OSAS, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was applied overnight. This did not reveal any dyspnea, respiratory depression, or hypoxia. No post-operative pulmonary complications, e.g., respiratory depression, pneumonia, hypoxia, upper airway obstruction, were reported. After 24 h in the ICU, the patient was discharged to the ward and started receiving the rehabilitation program. On the 8th postoperative day, he was discharged from hospital with a body weight of 222 kg.

3. Discussion

In this case report, we present a styletubation technique for tracheal intubation in a super-super-obese patient (BMI 103 kg/m2) undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Instead of using the conventional DL or VL, we used a styletubation technique for tracheal intubation (Figure 3). The procedure of using a video-assisted intubating stylet was smooth and swift, with high first-pass success (Figure 4). No significant cardiopulmonary instability (e.g., arterial desaturation, hypertension, tachycardia or bradycardia) was observed during intubation. No soft tissue or dental injuries occurred. Although the airway team members did feel a heavier mental load and more stress than during a usual airway exercise, the objective of “safe–accurate–swift” tracheal intubation was satisfactorily achieved in such super-super obesity patients (Table 1).
In general, airway operators are used to adopt either the conventional DL (with the Macintosh blade) or the VL for tracheal intubation in obese adult patients (Table 1). Intuitively, one would think the VL to be superior to the DL in such scenario. The advantages of VL have been demonstrated by proponents of the method and include better glottic visualization, shorter intubating time, less intubation attempts, or higher intubation success rates [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Therefore, they proposed that the VL be used as the overall first-line tracheal intubation modality versus Macintosh DL in obese patients (and perhaps for overall patient populations to be intubated). In contrast, opposite results regarding such a role for VL appeared in sporadic reports that show either VL is slower [31,32], or that both modalities allow for equally quick and safe airway management [33,34].
The overall evidence to support the routine use of VL, particularly in obese patients, is sparse. No definitive study has demonstrated a clear-cut superiority for its routine use in such scenarios. Some previous clinical comparative studies showed inconsistent results in terms of various outcomes such as overall success rates, time to successful tracheal intubation, and number of attempts (e.g., [31,32,33,34]). High-risk obese patients, in comparison to normal subjects, tolerated hypoxia much less and were at a higher risk of aspiration during tracheal intubation. Therefore, both the first-attempt success rate and intubation time become the most important and meaningful key performance indices among all comparators. Understandably, any intubating tools with a better glottis visualization would be advantageous for quicker and successful tracheal intubation. The same true is for such an application in obese populations.
Table 1. Comparison of laryngoscopy and styletubation on tracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients and this patient.
Table 1. Comparison of laryngoscopy and styletubation on tracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients and this patient.
Laryngoscopy (DL versus VL)Styletubation (VS)
(This Article)
BMI (kg/m2)>40.0 (Moon [11])
45.9 (Juvin [14])
43.5 & 42.8 (Marrel [20])
43 & 44 (Ndoko [21])
40–43 (Dhonneur [23])
42.7 & 43.5 (Ranieri [25])
42 (Yumul [27])
40.3 (Arslan [29])
42 (Andersen [31])
42.5 & 41.2 (Abdallah [32])
46 (Castillo-Monzon [34])
43.4 (Gaszynski [42])
43.7 (Dixit [43])
48.4 (Riad [44])
32.9 (Siriussawakul [45])
34.2 (Siriussawakul [46])
38.0 (Lavi [47])		103–90.9
Neck circumference (cm)47.3 & 46.2 (Marrel [20])
45.5 (Ranieri [25])
45 (Yumul [27])
43 (Arslan [29])
44 (Andersen [31])
45 (43.4%) (Castillo-Monzon [34])
42.3 (Riad [44])
39.0 (Siriussawakul [46])		54
Mallampati class (proportion of class III/IV)45.0% (Juvin [14])
32.5% & 32.5% (Marrel [20])
16% (Ndoko [21])
21.7–22.6% (Dhonneur [23])
37.5% & 38.2% (Ranieri [25])
23.3–40% (Yumul [27])
7.5% (Arslan [29])
32% & 22% (Andersen [31])
27% & 22% (Abdallah [32])
30.4% & 56.5% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
42% (Riad [44])
39.1% (Siriussawakul [45])
31.4 (Siriussawakul [46])
30.5% (Lavi [47])		Class IV
Sterno-mental distance (cm)12.5 (Ranieri [25])
14.0 (Arslan [29])
15.0 (Riad [44])
16.4 (Siriussawakul [45])
16.4 (Siriussawakul [46])		17
Mouth opening width (interincisor gap) (cm)<3.5 (26.4%) (Juvin [14])
4.6 & 4.7 (Marrel [20])
3.5 (Ndoko [21])
3.5 (Dhonneur [23])
3.7 (Ranieri [25])
5 (Yumul [27])
4 (Arslan [29])
<4 (4.5% & 9.5%) (Castillo-Monzon [34])
5.3 (Riad [44])
5.1 (Siriussawakul [45])
5.1 (Siriussawakul [46])
<4.0 (18.1%) (Lavi [47])		4.5
Upper lip bite test (proportion of class II/III)21.7%/5.7% (Siriussawakul [46])Class II
Pathologically enlarged, swelled, crowding oral cavity, pharynx, or larynxNACrowding surrounding soft tissues; omega-shaped epiglottis
OSAS
(Proportion)		35.7% (Juvin [14])
37.5% & 25% (Marrel [20])
16% & 30% (Andersen [31])
43.5% & 34.8% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
54.3% (Riad [44])
3.1% (Siriussawakul [46])		Presence
Intubation time:
(DA: >10 min)		93 s & 59 s (Marrel [20])
56 s & 24 s (Ndoko [21])
69 s & 29 s (Dhonneur [23])
36.9 s & 13.7 s (Ranieri [25])
43 s & 22/45/40 s (Yumul [27])
31 s (Arslan [29])
32 s & 48 s (Andersen [31])
26 s & 38 s (Abdallah [32])
22 s & 17 s (Castillo-Monzon [34])
1.39 min (Dixit [43])
45.1 s (Lavi [47])		12 s
Operator’s subjective feeling83.5% easy (Siriussawakul [45])Easy, smooth, swift
First-pass success rate92% & 98% (Andersen [31])
92% & 86% (Abdallah [32])
91.3% (Castillo-Monzon [34])		First-pass success
Number of attempts (proportion of more than 1 attempt)
(DA: >2 attempts)		20% & 5% (Marrel [20])
7.5% & 0% (Ndoko [21])
12.5% & 0% (Ranieri [25])
2–30% (Yumul [27])
25% (Arslan [29])
8% & 2% (Andersen [31])
8% & 12% (Abdallah [32])
3.2% & 1.9% for 2 & 3 attempts (Dixit [43])		1 attempt
Cormack–Lehane view (Proportion of III/IV)10.1% (Juvin [14])
12% & 0% (Marrel [20])
20.8% & 0% (Ndoko [21])
15.1% & 0 (Dhonneur [23])
7.8% & 0% (Ranieri [25])
35.4–0% (Yumul [27])
28% & 4% (Andersen [31])
22% & 14% (Abdallah [32])
0% & 4.35% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
29.3% (Dixit [43])
7.6%/0.9% (Siriussawakul [46])		NA (POGO 100%)
De-saturation
(incidence)		1.9% & 17.0% (Ndoko [21])
0% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
1.3% (Siriussawakul [46])		0
Airway injuries
(Incidence)		3–36% (Yumul [27])
0% & 4% (Abdallah [32])
4% & 22% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
2.7% (Siriussawakul [46])		0
POST
(Incidence)		52.8% & 0% (Ndoko [21])
81% (Arslan [29])
32% & 24% (Andersen [31])
33% & 32% (Abdallah [32])
4.1% (Siriussawakul [46])		0
IDS score
(Proportion)		≥5 (15%) (Juvin [14])
>5 (0% & 20.8%) (Ndoko [21])
>5 (19.7%) (Dixit [43])
>5 (Siriussawakul [45])
>5 (2.3%) (Siriussawakul [46])
>5 (BMI 44.4) (Lavi [47])		NA
DA in MO
(Incidence)		4.3% (Moon [11])
15.5% (Juvin [14])
15.5% (Arslan [29])
8% & 12% (Abdallah [32])
8.7% (Castillo-Monzon [34])
4.6% (Gaszynski [42])
2.7% (Dixit [43])
13.0% (Riad [44])
14.3% (Siriussawakul [45])
3.2% (Siriussawakul [46])
BMI 44.4 and IDS > 5 (Lavi [47])		0
DL: direct laryngoscopy; VL: videolaryngoscopy; VS: video-assisted intubating stylet technique; BMI: body mass index; OSAS: obstructive sleep apnea syndrome; DA: difficult airway; POST: post-operative sore throat; IDS: intubation difficulty scale; MO: morbid obesity.
It is worth mentioning that when airway operators use conventional laryngoscopy (both DL and VL) they might still encounter certain difficulties during tracheal intubation. Such technical difficulties and pitfalls include difficulties placing the laryngoscope blade into an oral cavity, injuries to the teeth or soft tissue, an inability to acquire a fair three axis alignment, obstructed visualization of the glottis, and finally difficult/failed advancement of the endotracheal tube into trachea (i.e., you see that you fail) [48,49,50,51]. In contrast, as shown in this case report, styletubation with a video-assisted intubating stylet provides timely success and fulfills the ultimate goal of tracheal intubation in a super-super-obese patient (i.e., swift, accurate, and safe) (Figure 3 and Figure 4; Table 1). In our medical center, we have routinely and universally performed styletubation for tracheal intubation as a daily practice since 2016 [41,52]. It is worth mentioning that such an application of styletubation has also been demonstrated in various potentially difficult airway scenarios, such as for patients with limited cervical mobility, during various ENT procedures, and for COVID-positive patients, etc. [53,54,55,56,57,58].

4. Conclusions

Many critical issues regarding the peri-anesthesia management of super-super-obese patients undergoing bariatric and non-bariatric surgeries must be considered if we are to resolve the related challenges [59,60]. For example, we must determine the pre-operative optimal positioning of such patients; formulate adequate pre-oxygenation and apneic oxygenation tactics; implement body-weight-adjusted medication regimens; undertake peri-operative monitoring; explain the role of VL and other rescue tools; devise ventilator strategies; promote post-operative care; etc. Currently, there is a move to incorporate the evolving knowledge of optimal airway management in obese patients undergoing major surgery/bariatric surgery into guideline, e.g., a recent consensus statement implemented in Italy [60]. In this case report, we demonstrate that the styletubation technique is applicable for use in a tracheal intubation in a super-super-obese patient undergoing bariatric surgery. In the future, more large-cohort outcome studies in such obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery must be conducted in order to compare various tracheal intubating modalities.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare11162256/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.-G.W., H.-N.L., J.Z.Q. and A.S.; methodology, B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; validation B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; formal analysis, B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; investigation, B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; resources, H.-N.L.; data curation, B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.-G.W. and H.-N.L.; writing—review and editing, J.Z.Q. and A.S.; visualization, H.-N.L.; supervision, H.-N.L.; project administration, H.-N.L.; funding acquisition, H.-N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Hualien Tzuchi Hospital.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by REC, Hualien Tzuchi Hospital (approved letter number: CR112-07).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or their legally authorized representatives.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Leykin, Y.; Pellis, T.; Del Mestro, E.; Marzano, B.; Fanti, G.; Brodsky, J.B. Anesthetic management of morbidly obese and super-morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric operations: Hospital course and outcomes. Obes. Surg. 2006, 16, 1563–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gray, K.D.; Pomp, A.; Dakin, G.; Amanat, S.; Turnbull, Z.A.; Samuels, J.; Afaneh, C. Perioperative outcomes and anesthetic considerations of robotic bariatric surgery in a propensity-matched cohort of super obese and super-super obese patients. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 4867–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wilkinson, K.H.; Helm, M.; Lak, K.; Higgins, R.M.; Gould, J.C.; Kindel, T.L. The risk of post-operative complications in super-super obesity compared to super obesity in accredited bariatric surgery centers. Obes. Surg. 2019, 29, 2964–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaye, A.D.; Lingle, B.D.; Brothers, J.C.; Rodriguez, J.R.; Morris, A.G.; Greeson, E.M.; Cornett, E.M. The patient with obesity and super-super obesity: Perioperative anesthetic considerations. Saudi J. Anesth. 2022, 16, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brodsky, J.B.; Lemmens, H.J.; Brock-Utne, J.G.; Vierra, M.; Saidman, L.J. Morbid obesity and tracheal intubation. Anesth. Analg. 2002, 94, 732–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Zundert, A.A.; Lee, R.A. Intubation difficulties in obese patients. Anesth. Analg. 2009, 108, 1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kristensen, M.S. Airway management and morbid obesity. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2010, 27, 923–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. De Jong, A.; Molinari, N.; Pouzeratte, Y.; Verzilli, D.; Chanques, G.; Jung, B.; Futier, E.; Perrigault, P.F.; Colson, P.; Capdevila, X.; et al. Difficult intubation in obese patients: Incidence, risk factors, and complications in the operating theatre and in intensive care units. Br. J. Anaesth. 2015, 114, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Petrini, F.; Di Giacinto, I.; Cataldo, R.; Esposito, C.; Pavoni, V.; Donato, P.; Trolio, A.; Merli, G.; Sorbello, M.; Pelosi, P. Obesity Task Force for the SIAARTI Airway Management Study Group. Perioperative and periprocedural airway management and respiratory safety for the obese patient: 2016 SIAARTI Consensus. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016, 82, 1314–1335. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wojcikiewicz, T.; Cousins, J.; Margarson, M. The bariatric airway. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2018, 79, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moon, T.S.; Fox, P.E.; Somasundaram, A.; Minhajuddin, A.; Gonzales, M.X.; Pak, T.J.; Ogunnaike, B. The influence of morbid obesity on difficult intubation and difficult mask ventilation. J. Anesth. 2019, 33, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Liew, W.J.; Negar, A.; Singh, P.A. Airway management in patients suffering from morbid obesity. Saudi. J. Anesth. 2022, 16, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Thota, B.; Jan, K.M.; Oh, M.W.; Moon, T.S. Airway management in patients with obesity. Saudi. J. Anesth. 2022, 16, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Juvin, P.; Lavaut, E.; Dupont, H.; Lefevre, P.; Demetriou, M.; Dumoulin, J.L.; Desmonts, J.M. Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesth. Analg. 2003, 97, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saasouh, W.; Laffey, K.; Turan, A.; Avitsian, R.; Zura, A.; You, J.; Zimmerman, N.M.; Szarpak, L.; Sessler, D.I.; Ruetzler, K. Degree of obesity is not associated with more than one intubation attempt: A large centre experience. Br. J. Anaesth. 2018, 120, 1110–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lundstrøm, L.H.; Møller, A.M.; Rosenstock, C.; Astrup, G.; Wetterslev, J. High body mass index is a weak predictor for difficult and failed tracheal intubation: A cohort study of 91,332 consecutive patients scheduled for direct laryngoscopy registered in the Danish Anesthesia Database. Anesthesiology 2009, 110, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Apfelbaum, J.L.; Hagberg, C.A.; Connis, R.T.; Abdelmalak, B.B.; Agarkar, M.; Dutton, R.P.; Fiadjoe, J.E.; Greif, R.; Klock, P.A.; Mercier, D.; et al. 2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2022, 136, 31–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Pieters, B.M.A.; Maas, E.H.A.; Knape, J.T.A.; van Zundert, A.A.J. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2017, 72, 1532–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Hansel, J.; Rogers, A.M.; Lewis, S.R.; Cook, T.M.; Smith, A.F. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 4, CD011136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marrel, J.; Blanc, C.; Frascarolo, P.; Magnusson, L. Videolaryngoscopy improves intubation condition in morbidly obese patients. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2007, 24, 1045–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ndoko, S.K.; Amathieu, R.; Tual, L.; Polliand, C.; Kamoun, W.; El Housseini, L.; Champault, G.; Dhonneur, G. Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: A randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008, 100, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Maassen, R.; Lee, R.; van Zundert, A.; Cooper, R. The videolaryngoscope is less traumatic than the classic laryngoscope for a difficult airway in an obese patient. J. Anesth. 2009, 23, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dhonneur, G.; Abdi, W.; Ndoko, S.K.; Amathieu, R.; Risk, N.; El Housseini, L.; Polliand, C.; Champault, G.; Combes, X.; Tual, L. Video-assisted versus conventional tracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients. Obes. Surg. 2009, 19, 1096–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gaszyński, T. Clinical experience with the C-Mac videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesiol. Intensive Ther. 2014, 46, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ranieri, D., Jr.; Zinelli, F.R.; Neubauer, A.G.; Schneider, A.P.; do Nascimento, P., Jr. Preanesthetic assessment data do not influence the time for tracheal intubation with Airtraq™ video laryngoscope in obese patients. Braz. J. Anesthesiol. 2014, 64, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Gaszyński, T. Comparison of the glottic view during video-intubation in super obese patients: A series of cases. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2016, 12, 1677–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Yumul, R.; Elvir-Lazo, O.L.; White, P.F.; Sloninsky, A.; Kaplan, M.; Kariger, R.; Naruse, R.; Parker, N.; Pham, C.; Zhang, X.; et al. Comparison of three video laryngoscopy devices to direct laryngoscopy for intubating obese patients: A randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 31, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Hoshijima, H.; Denawa, Y.; Tominaga, A.; Nakamura, C.; Shiga, T.; Nagasaka, H. Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 44, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arslan, Z.İ.; Yörükoğlu, H.U. Tracheal intubation with the McGrath MAC X-blade videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese and nonobese patients. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 49, 1540–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brozek, T.; Bruthans, J.; Porizka, M.; Blaha, J.; Ulrichova, J.; Michalek, P. A Randomized comparison of non-channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium versus channeled KingVisionTM videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in obese patients with BMI >35 kg·m−2. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andersen, L.H.; Rovsing, L.; Olsen, K.S. GlideScope videolaryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation of morbidly obese patients: A randomized trial. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2011, 55, 1090–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abdallah, R.; Galway, U.; You, J.; Kurz, A.; Sessler, D.I.; Doyle, D.J. A randomized comparison between the Pentax AWS video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 113, 1082–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ander, F.; Magnuson, A.; Berggren, L.; Ahlstrand, R.; de Leon, A. Time-to-intubation in obese patients. A randomized study comparing direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in experienced anesthetists. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017, 83, 906–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Castillo-Monzón, C.G.; Marroquín-Valz, H.A.; Fernández-Villacañas-Marín, M.; Moreno-Cascales, M.; García-Rojo, B.; Candia-Arana, C.A. Comparison of the macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes in morbidly obese patients: A randomized and prospective study. J. Clin. Anesth. 2017, 36, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nicholson, A.; Smith, A.F.; Lewis, S.R.; Cook, T.M. Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, CD010320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Aikins, N.L.; Ganesh, R.; Springmann, K.E.; Lunn, J.J.; Solis-Keus, J. Difficult airway management and the novice physician. J. Emerg. Trauma Shock. 2010, 3, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abdelmalak, B.B.; Bernstein, E.; Egan, C.; Abdallah, R.; You, J.; Sessler, D.I.; Doyle, D.J. GlideScope® vs flexible fibreoptic scope for elective intubation in obese patients. Anaesthesia. 2011, 66, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abdellatif, A.A.; Ali, M.A. GlideScope videolaryngoscope versus flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope for awake intubation of morbidly obese patient with predicted difficult intubation. Middle East J. Anaesthesiol. 2014, 22, 385–392. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gaszynski, T.; Pietrzyk, M.; Szewczyk, T.; Gaszynska, E. A comparison of performance of endotracheal intubation using the Levitan FPS optical stylet or Lary-Flex videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 207591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chung, M.Y.; Park, B.; Seo, J.; Kim, C.J. Successful airway management with combined use of McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope and fiberoptic bronchoscope in a severe obese patient with huge goiter-a case report. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2018, 71, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. Styletubation: The paradigmatic role of video-assisted intubating stylet technique for routine tracheal intubation. Asian J. Anesthesiol. 2023, preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gaszynski, T. Standard clinical tests for predicting difficult intubation are not useful among morbidly obese patients. Anesth. Analg. 2004, 99, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dixit, A.; Kulshrestha, M.; Mathews, J.J.; Bhandari, M. Are the obese difficult to intubate? Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 112, 770–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Riad, W.; Vaez, M.N.; Raveendran, R.; Tam, A.D.; Quereshy, F.A.; Chung, F.; Wong, D.T. Neck circumference as a predictor of difficult intubation and difficult mask ventilation in morbidly obese patients: A prospective observational study. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2016, 33, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Siriussawakul, A.; Limpawattana, P. A validation study of the intubation difficulty scale for obese patients. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 33, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siriussawakul, A.; Maboonyanon, P.; Kueprakone, S.; Samankatiwat, S.; Komoltri, C.; Thanakiattiwibun, C. Predictive performance of a multivariable difficult intubation model for obese patients. PLoS ONE. 2018, 13, e0203142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lavi, R.; Segal, D.; Ziser, A. Predicting difficult airways using the intubation difficulty scale: A study comparing obese and non-obese patients. J. Clin. Anesth. 2009, 21, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pieters, B.; Maassen, R.; Van Eig, E.; Maathuis, B.; Van Den Dobbelsteen, J.; Van Zundert, A. Indirect videolaryngoscopy using Macintosh blades in patients with non-anticipated difficult airways results in significantly lower forces exerted on teeth relative to classic direct laryngoscopy: A randomized crossover trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015, 81, 846–854. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kleine-Brueggeney, M.; Greif, R.; Schoettker, P.; Savoldelli, G.L.; Nabecker, S.; Theiler, L.G. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 116, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Aziz, M.F.; Bayman, E.O.; Van Tienderen, M.M.; Todd, M.M.; StAGE Investigator Group; Brambrink, A.M. Predictors of difficult videolaryngoscopy with GlideScope® or C-MAC® with D-blade: Secondary analysis from a large comparative videolaryngoscopy trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Schieren, M.; Kleinschmidt, J.; Schmutz, A.; Loop, T.; Staat, M.; Gatzweiler, K.H.; Wappler, F.; Defosse, J. Comparison of forces acting on maxillary incisors during tracheal intubation with different laryngoscopy techniques: A blinded manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2019, 74, 1563–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Luk, H.N.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. A paradigm shift of airway management: The role of video-assisted intubating stylet technique. In Advances in Tracheal Intubation; Lovich-Sapola, J., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tsai, P.B.; Luk, H.N. Plastic sheet and video intubating stylet: A technical note. Asian J. Anesthesiol. 2021, 59, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tsay, P.J.; Yang, C.P.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. Video-assisted intubating stylet technique for difficult intubation: A Case Series Report. Healthcare 2022, 10, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shih, T.L.; Koay, K.P.; Hu, C.Y.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. The use of the Shikani video-assisted intubating stylet technique in patients with restricted neck mobility. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yang, C.P.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. The use of a video-assisted intubating stylet technique in a critically ill and contagious COVID-19 patient. Healthcare 2022, 10, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Huang, C.H.; Su, I.M.; Jhuang, B.J.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. Video-assisted stylet intubation with a plastic sheet barrier, a safe and simple technique for tracheal intubation of COVID-19 patients. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jhuang, B.J.; Luk, H.N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. Video-twin technique for airway management, combining video-intubating stylet with videolaryngoscope: A case series report and review of the literature. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mulier, J.P.; Dillemans, B. Anaesthetic factors affecting outcome after bariatric surgery, a retrospective levelled regression analysis. Obes. Surg. 2019, 29, 1841–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Marinari, G.; Foletto, M.; Nagliati, C.; Navarra, G.; Borrelli, V.; Bruni, V.; Fantola, G.; Moroni, R.; Tritapepe, L.; Monzani, R.; et al. Enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery: An Italian consensus statement. Surg. Endosc. 2022, 36, 7171–7186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 11 02256 g001
Figure 1. Pre-operative airway evaluation. (A): 158 cm, weight: 258 kg, and body mass index (BMI): 103 kg/m2). (B): neck circumference 54 cm. (C): the modified Mallampati classification class IV. (D–G): serial images from video naso-pharyngo-laryngoscopic examination. An omega-shaped epiglottis is noted.
Figure 1. Pre-operative airway evaluation. (A): 158 cm, weight: 258 kg, and body mass index (BMI): 103 kg/m2). (B): neck circumference 54 cm. (C): the modified Mallampati classification class IV. (D–G): serial images from video naso-pharyngo-laryngoscopic examination. An omega-shaped epiglottis is noted.
Healthcare 11 02256 g001
Healthcare 11 02256 g002
Figure 2. Preoperative drill and planning in the operating room. (A): standing posture. (B): remained supine position on the operating table. (C): the enlarged neck size with thick fat pads. (D–F): adjusting the height of the pillows and rolls under the patient to line up the ear–sternum in a ramp position. Neutral position with mouth closure (D) and opening (E). Sniff position with mouth opening (F).
Figure 2. Preoperative drill and planning in the operating room. (A): standing posture. (B): remained supine position on the operating table. (C): the enlarged neck size with thick fat pads. (D–F): adjusting the height of the pillows and rolls under the patient to line up the ear–sternum in a ramp position. Neutral position with mouth closure (D) and opening (E). Sniff position with mouth opening (F).
Healthcare 11 02256 g002
Healthcare 11 02256 g003
Figure 3. Tracheal intubation conducted via the styletubation technique. (A): Before conducting the intubation procedure, the airway assistant helped to open the patient’s mouth. A nasopharyngeal airway-flexible suction tube was applied to clear the airway. (B): The airway assistant conducted jaw-thrust maneuver to lift up the patient’s mandible while keeping the airway open. (C): The airway operator inserted the video intubating stylet using the guidance shown in a video monitor. (D): Glottic visualization before advancing off the endotracheal tube into the patient’s trachea.
Figure 3. Tracheal intubation conducted via the styletubation technique. (A): Before conducting the intubation procedure, the airway assistant helped to open the patient’s mouth. A nasopharyngeal airway-flexible suction tube was applied to clear the airway. (B): The airway assistant conducted jaw-thrust maneuver to lift up the patient’s mandible while keeping the airway open. (C): The airway operator inserted the video intubating stylet using the guidance shown in a video monitor. (D): Glottic visualization before advancing off the endotracheal tube into the patient’s trachea.
Healthcare 11 02256 g003
Healthcare 11 02256 g004
Figure 4. Serial images recorded during styletubation. (A): a narrow oro-pharyngeal space. The green naso-pharyngeal airway can be observed. (B): the omega-shape epiglottis came to sight. (C): a close-up view of the omega-shaped epiglottis. (D,E): visualization of the glottis and vocal cords. (F): view of the tracheal wall before advancement of the endotracheal tube into the trachea. The whole intubation process (from mouth to trachea) was 12 s and succeeded in the first attempt. (See Video S1 in the Supplementary Materials).
Figure 4. Serial images recorded during styletubation. (A): a narrow oro-pharyngeal space. The green naso-pharyngeal airway can be observed. (B): the omega-shape epiglottis came to sight. (C): a close-up view of the omega-shaped epiglottis. (D,E): visualization of the glottis and vocal cords. (F): view of the tracheal wall before advancement of the endotracheal tube into the trachea. The whole intubation process (from mouth to trachea) was 12 s and succeeded in the first attempt. (See Video S1 in the Supplementary Materials).
Healthcare 11 02256 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, B.-G.; Luk, H.-N.; Qu, J.Z.; Shikani, A. Styletubation in Bariatric Surgery: A Case Report. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2256. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162256

AMA Style

Wu B-G, Luk H-N, Qu JZ, Shikani A. Styletubation in Bariatric Surgery: A Case Report. Healthcare. 2023; 11(16):2256. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Bor-Gang, Hsiang-Ning Luk, Jason Zhensheng Qu, and Alan Shikani. 2023. "Styletubation in Bariatric Surgery: A Case Report" Healthcare 11, no. 16: 2256. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162256

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop