Comparison of two different methods of fiber-optic nasal intubation: conventional method versus facilitated method (NASAL-18)

Figures & data

Table I. Comparison of baseline characteristics, T1, T2, total time, and facilitation maneuvers between two groups, conventional (control) and NASAL-18.

Parameters	Conventional	NASAL-18	P value
Male sex (n)	22 (68.8%)	16 (66.7%)	0.86
ASA classes
Class I	13 (40.6%)	5 (20.8%)	0.11
Class II	19 (59.4%)	19 (79.1%)
Age (year)	34.5 ± 7.1	35.25 ± 7.9	0.71
Weight (kg)	73.9 ± 7.4	74.4 ± 9.0	0.84
T1 (s)	151.0 ± 56.5	65.2 ± 33.2	0.001
T2 (s)	25.1 ± 18.5	21.8 ± 10.2	0.45
Total time (s)	176.2 ± 56.3	87.1 ± 41.0	<0.001
Success (n)	16 (66.7%)	20 (83.3%)	0.18
Jaw thrust (n)	6 (25%)	6 (25%)	1
Head flexion (n)	8 (33.0%)	1 (4.2%)	0.02

Numerical data have been expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification; T1 = time from the start of insertion of the fiberscope into nares till visualization of vocal cord; T2 = time from here to complete intubation as T2.

Table II. Result of regression analysis for time from the start of insertion of the fiberscope into nares till visualization of vocal cord (T1) as the dependent variable has been summarized.

	Coefficient	P value
Model constant	33.6	–
Intervention	82.7	<0.001
Age (year)	1.5	0.11
Weight (kg)	−0.6	0.44
ASA classes	−30.8	0.04

Intervention shows the T1 change between two groups, conventional (control) and NASAL-18.

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification.