Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Neonatal airway: challenging endotracheal intubation in infants with tracheal malformations at birth
  1. Arpan Agarwal1,
  2. Masakazu Nakao2,
  3. Victor Samuel Rajadurai1,3,4,5,
  4. Suresh Chandran1,3,4,5
  1. 1 Department of Neonatology, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore
  2. 2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore
  3. 3 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore
  4. 4 Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Singapore
  5. 5 Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Dr Suresh Chandran, schandran1312{at}yahoo.co.uk

Summary

Intubating newborn infants can be exacting. We describe two cases of endotracheal intubations in infants born with tracheal malformations. A male infant aged 30 weeks required intubation at birth for respiratory distress. Repeated attempts at intubation failed to achieve an optimal endotracheal tube position as the tube could not advance beyond the vocal cords. Hence ventilation continued with suboptimal air entry in the lungs. Bronchoscopy and CT scan confirmed tracheal stenosis. Slide tracheoplasty was successfully executed on day 78 of life. A female infant aged 33 weeks was intubated at birth for perinatal depression. Attempts at intubation were unsuccessful due to non-visualisation of the laryngeal inlet. Oesophagus was intubated and attempts to inflate showed air entry in the lungs, suggesting a fistulous communication between oesophagus and airway. A contrast oesophagogram showed a fistula connecting oesophagus and carina. With airway patency in question and associated major anomalies, parents were counselled and support was withdrawn.

  • Resuscitation
  • Neonatal and paediatric intensive care
  • Otolaryngology / ENT

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors AA and SC: manuscript preparation and review of the literature. NM: manuscript preparation and literature review of surgical aspects of case 1. VSR: manuscript preparation and involved in antenatal planning, delivery and management of the case.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained from guardian.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.