A Randomized Comparison of a Parker Endotracheal Tube and a Standard Tube Oriented 90° Counterclockwise

Wade A. Weigel, Thomas C. Dean

Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, USA..

DOI: 10.4236/ojanes.2012.25050                

Abstract

Purpose: During oral fiberoptic intubation, advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) into the trachea is occasionally impeded by laryngeal structures. The curved flex tip Parker ETT has been shown to improve the likelihood of successful advancement as opposed to a standard ETT that is advanced in neutral orientation. However, a Parker tube has not been compared to a standard ETT oriented 90° counterclockwise from the neutral position. We hypothesize that fiber-optically-guided advancement of an ETT into the trachea will be more successful when using a Parker tube than a 90° counterclockwise-oriented standard ETT. Methods: This unblinded, randomized controlled trial compares the rate of successful advancement of a fiberoptically-guided endotracheal tube into the trachea. Two groups of randomly assigned patients with non-difficult airways are compared: a Parker flex-tip tube (Parker Group; n = 57) versus a standard ETT oriented 90° counterclockwise (Standard Group; n = 58). Our primary outcome is the first pass success rate of advanceing the ETT into the trachea. Results: First pass success occurred in 48 of 57 (84%) patients in the Parker Group vs. 39 of 58 (67%) of patients in the Standard Group (p = 0.0497). Conclusion: When advancing an ETT over an oral fiberoptic scope and into the trachea, a Parker curved flex tip ETT is statistically more likely to be placed successfully on the first pass than is a standard ETT oriented 90° counterclockwise.

Keywords

Endotracheal; Intubation; Parker; Mallinckrodt; Fiberoptic

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	H. E. Jones, A. C. Pearce and P. Moore, “Fiberoptic intubation: Influence of Tracheal Tube Tip Design,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 48, 1993, 48, pp. 672-674.
[2]	P. Hakala, T. Randell and H. Valli, “Comparison between Tracheal Tubes for Orotracheal Fibreoptic Intubation,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1999, pp. 135-136. doi:10.1093/bja/82.1.135
[3]	D. M. Johnson, M. Aaron, R. B. Smith, P. Robert and M. A. Maktabi, “Endoscopic Study of Mechanisms of Failure of Endotracheal Tube Advancement into the Trachea during Awake Fiberoptic Orotracheal Intubation,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 102, No. 5, 2005, pp. 910-914. doi:10.1097/00000542-200505000-00008
[4]	T. Katsnelson, E. A. M. Frost, E. Farcon and P. L. Goldiner, “When the Endotracheal Tube Will Not Pass over the Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscope [Letter],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1992, pp.151-152. doi:10.1097/00000542-199201000-00030
[5]	M. A. Maktabi, H. Hoffman, G. Funk and R. P. From, “Laryngeal Trauma during Awake Fiberoptic Intubation,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol. 95, No. 4, 2002, pp. 1112-1114.
[6]	S. Moorthy and S. Dierdorf, “An Unusual Difficulty in Fiberoptic Intubation,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 63, No. 2, 1985, p. 229. doi:10.1097/00000542-198508000-00031
[7]	M. S. Kristensen, “The Parker Flex-Tip Tuber versus a Standard Tube for Fiberoptic Orotracheal Intubation, “A Randomized Double-blind Study,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 98, No. 2, 2003, pp. 354-358. doi:10.1097/00000542-200302000-00014
[8]	A. M. Ho, D. C. Chung and M. K. Karmakar, “Is the Parker Flex-Tip Tube Really Superior to the Standard Tube for Fiberoptic Orotracheal Intubation? [Letter],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 99, No. 5, 2003, p. 1236. doi:10.1097/00000542-200311000-00038
[9]	M. Wheeler and R. M. Dsida, “Fiberoptic Intubation: Troubles with the ‘Tube’ [Letter],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 99, No. 5, 2003, pp. 1236-1237. doi:10.1097/00000542-200311000-00039
[10]	H. S. Joo, V. N. Naik and G. L. Savoldelli, “Parker Flex-Tip Are Not Superior to Polyvinylchloride Tracheal Tubes for Awake Fibreoptic Intubations,” Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2005, pp. 297-301. doi:10.1007/BF03016067
[11]	M. S. Kristensen and J. Moller, “Airway Management Behavior, Experience and Knowledge among Danish Anaesthesiologists-Room for Improvement,” Acta An-aesthesiologica Scandinavica, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2001, pp. 1181-1185. doi:10.1034/j.1399-6576.2001.450921.x
[12]	M. S. Kristensen, “Is the Parker Flex-Tip Tube Really Superior to the Standard Tube for Fiberoptic Orotracheal Intubation? [Letter-Author Reply],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 99, No. 5, 2003, p. 1237. doi:10.1097/00000542-200311000-00040
[13]	D. Schwartz, C. Johnson and J. Roberts, “A Maneuver to Facilitate Flexible Fiberoptic Intubation [Letter],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 71, No. 3, 1989, pp. 470-471. doi:10.1097/00000542-198909000-00038
[14]	I. Calder, “When the Endotracheal Tube Will Not Pass over the Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscope [Letter],” Anesthesiology, Vol. 77, No. 2, 1992, pp. 398-399. doi:10.1097/00000542-199208000-00036
[15]	P. Hakala and T. Randell, “Comparison between Two Fiberscopes with Different Diameter Insertion Cords for Fiberoptic Intubation,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 50, No. 8, 1995, pp. 735-737. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06108.x
[16]	K. Koga, T. Asai, IP Latto and R. S. Vaughan, “Effect of the Size of a Tracheal Tub and the Efficacy of the Use of the Laryngeal Mask for Fiberscope-Aided Tracheal Intubation,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1997, pp. 131-135. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1997.31-az0058.x
[17]	N. J. Marsh, “Easier Fiberoptic Intubations,” Anesthesiology, Vol. 76, 1992, pp. 860-861. doi:10.1097/00000542-199205000-00031