Difficult orotracheal intubation in a rabbit resulting from the presence of faecal pellets in the oropharynx

Development and evaluation of an anatomically designed and 3D printed device to enhance orotracheal intubation success in rabbits by inexperienced veterinarians

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the use of a three-dimensional (3D) printed device enhances the success rate of orotracheal intubation in rabbits.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, crossover randomized controlled trial.

ANIMALS

A total of six mixed-breed rabbits.

METHODS

A device to guide the endotracheal tube was designed based on computed tomography images and then manufactured using 3D printing. Rabbits were randomly assigned for intubation by two inexperienced veterinarians using the blind (BLI), borescope- (BOR) or device- (DEV) guided techniques. Success rate, number of attempts, time to success, injury scores and propofol dose were recorded and compared. Significance was considered when p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Success rate was higher in DEV (58.3%) than in BLI (8.3%) (p < 0.023), but not different from that in BOR (41.6%). Total time until successful intubation was lower in DEV (45 ± 23 seconds) and BOR (85 ± 62 seconds) than in BLI (290 seconds; p < 0.006). Time for the successful attempt was lower for DEV (35 ± 10 seconds) and BOR (74 ± 43 seconds) than in BLI (290 seconds; p < 0.0001). The propofol dose required was lower for DEV (2.3 ± 1.2 mg kg-1) than for BLI (3.4 ± 1.6 mg kg-1) (p < 0.031), but not different from BOR (2.4 ± 0.9 mg kg-1). Number of attempts and oxygen desaturation events were not different among techniques (p < 0.051 and p < 0.326, respectively). Injury scores [median (range)] before and after attempts were different in BLI [0 versus 1 (0-3), p < 0.005] and BOR [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-3), p < 0.002] but not in DEV [0 (0-2) versus 0 (0-3), p < 0.109].

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The device facilitated orotracheal intubation with a time similar to the borescope-guided technique but faster than the traditional blind technique.

Comparison of blind intubation and a smartphone-based endoscope-assisted intubation in rabbits

OBJECTIVE

To compare between blind and smartphone-based endoscope-assisted techniques for endotracheal intubation in rabbits.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

ANIMALS

A total of 34 rabbits.

METHODS

Rabbits were assigned to four groups: intubation by a veterinary anesthesiologist (VA) or an exotic pet medicine specialist (EPS) using blind or endoscope-assisted techniques. Propofol dose, number of attempts until successful intubation, total time for intubation, duration of the successful attempt and occurrence of lingual cyanosis/laryngeal lesions were recorded. Data were analyzed by t test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Pearson correlation for body weight was performed.

RESULTS

The success rate of blind intubation was 88.9% and 77.8% for VA and EPS, respectively. Propofol dose, total and median number of attempts, total time for intubation and duration of the successful attempt were 3.1 (0-6.2) mg kg^-1, 19, 2 (1-5), 79 ± 65 and 30 ± 20 seconds for VA and 1.5 (0-4.5) mg kg^-1, 24, 3 (1-5), 136 ± 92 and 38 ± 16 seconds for EPS. The success rate of endoscope-assisted intubation was 87.5% for both operators. Propofol dose, total and median number of attempts, total time for intubation and duration of the successful attempt were 2.5 (1.3-7.4) mg kg^-1, 22, 3 (1-5), 170 (65-368) and 46 (22-150) seconds for VA and 3.2 (0-6) mg kg^-1, 11, 1 (1-4), 56 (27-432) and 55 (26-79) seconds for EPS. VA performed blind intubation more quickly, propofol dose was lower and cyanosis was less frequent than in the endoscope-assisted group.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Both techniques were reliable for rabbit endotracheal intubation. Best results were achieved when the operator was experienced in the technique. The smartphone-based endoscope is a useful aid for rabbit intubation.

Comparison of a Supraglottic Airway Device (v-gel®) with Blind Orotracheal Intubation in Rabbits

INTRODUCTION

Achieving a secure airway in rabbits is generally considered more difficult than in cats or dogs. Their relatively large tongue, small oropharyngeal cavity and glottis limit direct visualization. A rabbit-specific supraglottic airway device (SGAD) may offer benefits over blind orotracheal intubation.

ANIMALS AND METHODS

Fifteen adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to SGAD or orotracheal intubation (ETT). All animals were sedated with dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg^-1 IM) and midazolam (0.5 mg kg^-1 IM), followed by induction with alfaxalone (0.3 mg kg^-1 IV). Two CT scans of the head and neck were performed, following sedation and SGAD/ETT placement. The following were recorded: time to successful device insertion, smallest cross-sectional airway area, airway sealing pressure, and histological score of tracheal tissue. Data were analyzed with a Mann-Whitney test.

RESULTS

Two rabbits were excluded following failed ETT. Body masses were similar [ETT; n = 6, 2.6 (2.3-4.5) kg, SGAD; n = 7, 2.7 (2.4-5.0) kg]. SGAD placement was significantly faster [33 (14-38) s] than ETT [59 (29-171) s]. Cross-sectional area (CSA) was significantly reduced from baseline [12.2 (6.9-3.4) mm²] but similar between groups [SGAD; 2.7 (2.0-12.3) mm², ETT; 3.8 (2.3-6.6) mm²]. In the SGAD group, the device tip migrated into the laryngeal vestibule in 6/7 rabbits, reducing the CSA. ETT airway seals were higher [15 (10-20) cmH₂O], but not significant [SGAD; 5 (5-20) cmH₂O, p = 0.06]. ETT resulted in significantly more mucosal damage [histological score 3.3 (1.0-5.0)], SGAD; 0.67 (0.33-3.67).

CONCLUSION

The SGAD studied was faster to place and caused less damage than orotracheal intubation, but resulted in a similar CSA.