Is it time for routine use of the retromolar fiberscope?

Abstract

Purpose:This study aimed to determine the effectiveness, safety, and oral intubation time (IT) using a retromolar Bonfils fiberoptic scope compared with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients (16-60 years old, American Society of Anesthesiology I/II) scheduled for general anesthesia for elective ear-nose-throat and plastic surgery were randomly divided into a Bonfils group (Group B, n = 30) and a Macintosh group (Group M, n = 30). Exclusion criteria included Mallampati IV, thyromental distance ≤4 cm, mouth <4 cm, cervical spine problems, body mass index >35, sleep apnea, reflux esophagitis, coronary artery disease, intracranial vascular malformation, elevated intracranial pressure, bleeding disorders, allergies to planned drugs, and patient refusal. Mallampati scoring, mouth opening, and thyromental distance were used for airway assessment. The time needed for successful intubation (IT), number of attempts, number of failures, systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP), heart rate (HR) and Oxygen saturation (O2) and damage to the lips, dentures, and pharyngeal or laryngeal structures were recorded. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables are presented as frequency and percentage. Chi-square tests and Student's t-tests were used to compare the groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:The groups were comparable regarding demographic data, preoperative airway parameters, IT, the number of attempts, O2, and the incidence of complications (P > 0.05). However, Bonfils intubation was associated with more stable HR, SBP, DBP and MBP (P < 0.05).Conclusion:The Bonfils fiberoptic scope is comparable to a Macintosh laryngoscope but assures better hemodynamic stability. In difficult cases, the Bonfils scope is a better choice because of its ability to navigate.