[Airway management in pediatric anesthesia].
ABSTRACT Airway management in newborns, infants, and children is a challenge to anesthesia practitioners due to the particular anatomic and physiological characteristics. The larynx is positioned more cephalad, the occiput is protuberant, and the neck is short, which makes a special position for anesthesia induction necessary. The high respiratory frequency due to high oxygen demand and carbon dioxide production has to be taken into consideration during manual as well as mechanical ventilation. Different devices are available for airway management. Simple mask ventilation can be improved by a Wendl tube. The classic laryngeal mask can be recommended as a safe airway device in many indications, specifically in children with an upper respiratory airway infection. If intubation is indicated, an optimal size and position of the endotracheal tube has to be provided. Fiberoptic endotracheal intubation is recommended if a difficult airway is known or anticipated due to a craniofacial syndrome.
- Indian journal of anaesthesia 03/2013; 57(2):195-7.
Article: [Awake fiberoptic intubation].[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Airway management is a core task for anesthesiologists. Deficiencies in training or equipment as well as fateful complications in this field are responsible for a significant proportion of anesthesia-associated morbidity and mortality. Nowadays there are a variety of advanced technical aids on the market to overcome the difficult airway. Nevertheless, the "cannot intubate cannot ventilate scenario" still occurs and regularly results in poor outcome, such as permanent neurological deficits or even death. Therefore, awake fiberoptic intubation remains the gold standard in the expected difficult airway because when applied correctly this technique never leads to a point where a patient's respiration is compromised as a result of medical measures before a secure airway has been established.Der Anaesthesist 12/2011; 60(12):1157-74; quiz 1175-7. · 0.74 Impact Factor
- Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 04/2010; 107(17):304; author reply 304-5. · 3.61 Impact Factor