Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Background and Aims: The laryngoscope is a common piece of equipment used by anaesthesiologists. It has been identified as a potential source of cross infection. Although guidelines exist regarding appropriate disinfection practices, recent reviews suggest ineffectiveness of current methods of disinfection and poor compliance with the established protocols. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to study the current disinfection practices being followed by a cross section of anaesthesiologists. Methods: A simple questionnaire containing 13 questions was distributed amongst anaesthesiologists in an anaesthesia conference. Data were analysed with percentage analysis. Results: Out of 250 delegates who attended the conference, 150 submitted the completed questionnaires. Residents constituted 41% and 46% were consultants. Eighteen (12%) used only tap water for cleaning and 132 (88%) used a chemical agent after rinsing with water. Out of 132, 76 (51%) used detergent/soap solution, 29 (19%) would wash and then soak in disinfectant or germicidal agents (glutaraldehyde, povidone iodine and chlorhexidine) and 18 (12%) would wipe the blade with an alcohol swab. With respect to disinfection of laryngoscope handles, 70% respondents said they used an alcohol swab, 18% did not use any method, 9% were not aware of the method being used, while 3% did not respond. Conclusion: Our results indicate wide variation in methods of decontamination of laryngoscopes. Awareness regarding laryngoscope as a potential source of infection was high. We need to standardise and implement guidelines on a national level and make available resources which will help to improve patient safety

Comparison of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block versus local infiltration during paediatric laparoscopic surgeries

Background and Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks with local port site infiltration in children undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Methods: After ethics committee approval and informed consent, 92 children aged 2–12 years posted for laparoscopic surgeries were randomly divided into Group T and Group L. Port site infiltration was performed in Group L by the surgeon at the time of port placement and end of surgery with 0.4mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine. Bilateral TAP block was performed in Group T after induction of anaesthesia, under ultrasonographic guidance with a Logiq E7 GE portable ultrasound unit and a linear 5–10 MHz probe. A 22G hypodermic needle and 0.4 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine were used on each side for the TAP block. The parameters recorded were intraoperative haemodynamics, opioid requirements, postoperative pain scores and the need for rescue analgesia in the first 6 h postoperatively. Results: The median (interquartile range) pain scores were significantly lower in the TAP block group than the local infiltration group at 10 min [2 (0–2.5) vs 2 (3–4); P = 0.011], 30 min [1.5 (0–3) vs 3 (2–5);P < 0.001], 1 h [1.5 (0–2) vs 2 (2–3);P < 0.001] and 2 h [2 (0–2) vs 2 (1.5–2.5); P = 0.010] postoperatively. The need for intraoperative opioids and rescue analgesia was also significantly lower in the TAP block group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: TAP block is superior to local infiltration for intra- and immediate postoperative analgesia in paediatric laparoscopic surgeries

Comparison of different sizes Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope in pediatric patients: A prospective, observational study

Background: We aimed at comparing the performance of the three different sizes of AirtraqTM, when performing tracheal intubation in paediatric patients requiring general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Methods: After obtaining informed count from parents, 30 infant, 30 children and 30 adolescent patients underwent tracheal intubation in K.E.M. hospital using AirtraqTM laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by an anaesthetist having at least 5 years of experience in anaesthesia. Results: The Small Airtraq performed best, with less time taken for intubation, no failed intubations, grater percentage of glottic opening score and visual analogue score for ease of use. Optimization manoeuvres were required for intubations in all the patients in infant group; with 5 failed intubations indicating intubation using infant Airtraq was more challenging. Conclusions: Proficiency in using Airtraq in adults may not always translate to successful intubations in infants. Learning curve of an airway gadget is witnessed in its different sized version