Awake Fiberoptic Intubation in Cervical Spine Injury: A Comparison between Atomized Local Anesthesia versus Airway Nerve Blocks.

Background In cooperative patients with cervical spine injury, awake fiberoptic intubation is an excellent option for elective and semi urgent situations. It allows documentation of neurologic examination before and after intubation and surgical positioning. We have compared anesthesia of airway by nerve block and the local anesthesia atomizer undergoing awake fiberoptic intubation in cervical spine injury patients, in terms of the intubation time and discomfort. Objective To compare the intubation time and discomfort in patient with cervical spine injury with anticipated difficult airway potential to aggravate pre-existing injury undergoing awake fiberoptic intubation, based on cough and gag scores, between anesthesia of airway by (transtracheal and bilateral superior laryngeal) nerve block with local anesthetic agent and the local anesthesia atomizer. Method After institutional ethical approval and having informed written consent, 30 patients scheduled for elective surgery who require awake fiberoptic intubation, were included in the study. Patients were allotted by computer-generated random series into two groups; Group N received nerve block (transtracheal and bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve block) and Group A received atomized lignocaine. Result The time taken for awake fiberoptic intubation was significantly lower in nerve blocks group as compared with the atomizer group [Group N: 90.2±11.7secs and Group A: 210.4±10.6 secs (p=0.041)]. Atomizer group had an increased coughing and gagging episodes than nerve block group [Group N: one patient, Group A: 11 patients (p=0.006)]. Ease of intubation and patient comfort were significantly better in nerve block group. Demographic and hemodynamic parameters were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion The nerve blocks (bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal) provides adequate airway anesthesia, lesser patient discomfort, and faster intubation to aid in awake fiberoptic intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway as compared to topical anesthesia using atomizer.