BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation failure in patients with difficult airway is still not uncommon. While videolaryngoscopes such as the Glidescope offer better glottic vision due to an acute-angled blade, this advantage does not always lead to an increased success rate because successful insertion of the tube through the vocal cords may be the limiting factor. We hypothesize that combined use of Glidescope and fiberscope used only as a dynamic guide facilitates tracheal intubation compared to a conventional Glidescope technique with a preshaped nondynamic stylet. METHODS: One hundred sixty adult patients with predicted difficult airway were randomly assigned to a conventional Glidescope (standard Glidescope group) or a combined Glidescope + fiberscope group intubation. In the Glidescope + fiberscope group under direct vision from the Glidescope, tracheal intubation was performed using the fiberscope as a guide without using fiberoptic vision, while in the standard Glidescope group, a conventional stylet-guided intubation technique was performed. We evaluated the rate of tracheal intubation success at first attempt as the primary end point (Fisher exact test). The difference between groups in airway injury, time to successful intubation, and the need for an alternative technique was also evaluated. RESULTS: First-attempt intubation success was higher in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (91% vs 67%; P = .0012; fragility index, 8; absolute risk reduction, 24% [95% CI, 12%–36%]). Median time to successful tracheal intubation was shorter in the Glidescope + fiberscope group (50 vs 64 seconds; P = .035). Airway injury rate was lower in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (1% vs 11%; P = .035; fragility index, 1; absolute risk reduction, 10% [95% CI, 3%–18%]). Alternative rescue technique requirements to achieve tracheal intubation were higher in the standard Glidescope group (24% vs 4%; P < .001; fragility index, 7). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a dynamic, flexible guide during a Glidescope laryngoscopy in patients with a predicted difficult airway compared to a standard intubation technique improves first-attempt intubation success, decreases the incidence of airway injury and time to successful intubation, as well as the need of an alternative technique to succeed.

Background and objectivesIn the context of opioid-sparing perioperative management, there is still little evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of interfascial thoracic blocks. This study hypothesizes that receiving a serratus plane block reduces opioid requirements, pain scores, and rescue medication needs.MethodsThis double-blind, randomized controlled study was conducted on 60 adult females undergoing oncologic breast surgery. After general anesthesia, patients were randomly allocated to either conventional analgesia (control group, n=30) or single-injection serratus block with L-bupivacaine 0.25% 30mL (study group, n=30). First 24-hour total morphine consumption (primary outcome), pain scores at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours, time-to-first opioid rescue analgesia, and adverse effects were recorded.ResultsMedian 24 hours’ opioid dose was greater in the control group (median difference 9 mg (95% CI 4 to 14.5 mg); p<0.001). Proportional odds model showed that the study group has a lower probability of receiving opioid drugs (OR=0.26 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.68); p<0.001), while mastectomies have a higher probability of receiving them (OR=4.11 (95% CI 1.25 to 13.58); p=0.002). Pain scores in the study group were significantly lower throughout the follow-up period (p<0.001). Control group subjects needed earlier morphine rescue and had a higher risk of rescue dose requirement (p=0.002).ConclusionsInterfascial serratus plane block reduces opioid requirements and is associated with better pain scores and lower and later rescue analgesia needs in the first 24 hours, compared with conventional intravenous analgesia, in breast surgery.Trial registration numberNCT02905149.