Dental trauma during tracheal intubation mostly happens in case of poor dentition, restricted mouth opening, and/or difficult laryngoscopy. 57-year-old man undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma had his dental work detached at induction of anesthesia. Oropharyngeal direct view, manual inspection, fibreoptic nosendoscopy, tracheobronchoscopy, and fiberoptic inspection of the esophagus and stomach were unsuccessful in locating the dislodged bridge. While other possible exams were considered, such as lateral and AP x-ray of head and neck, furthermeticulousmanual “sweepings” of the mouth were performed, and by moving the first and second fingers below the soft palate deep towards the posterolateral wall of the pharynx, feeling consistent with a dental prosthesis was detected in the right pharyngeal recess. Only after pulling the palatopharyngeal arch upward was it possible to grasp it and extract it out with the aid of a Magill Catheter Forceps. Even though the preexisting root and bridge deficits were well reported by the consultant dentist, the patient was fully reimbursed. The lack of appropriate documentation of the advanced periodontal disease in the anesthesia records, no mention of potential risks on anesthesia consent, and insufficient protective measures during airway instrumentation reinforced the reimbursement claim.
Unusual Displacement of aMobilised Dental Bridge during Orotracheal Intubation
Barbieri, Stefania;TIANO, Letizia;GAUDIO, Rosa Maria;AVATO, Francesco Maria
2011
Abstract
Dental trauma during tracheal intubation mostly happens in case of poor dentition, restricted mouth opening, and/or difficult laryngoscopy. 57-year-old man undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma had his dental work detached at induction of anesthesia. Oropharyngeal direct view, manual inspection, fibreoptic nosendoscopy, tracheobronchoscopy, and fiberoptic inspection of the esophagus and stomach were unsuccessful in locating the dislodged bridge. While other possible exams were considered, such as lateral and AP x-ray of head and neck, furthermeticulousmanual “sweepings” of the mouth were performed, and by moving the first and second fingers below the soft palate deep towards the posterolateral wall of the pharynx, feeling consistent with a dental prosthesis was detected in the right pharyngeal recess. Only after pulling the palatopharyngeal arch upward was it possible to grasp it and extract it out with the aid of a Magill Catheter Forceps. Even though the preexisting root and bridge deficits were well reported by the consultant dentist, the patient was fully reimbursed. The lack of appropriate documentation of the advanced periodontal disease in the anesthesia records, no mention of potential risks on anesthesia consent, and insufficient protective measures during airway instrumentation reinforced the reimbursement claim.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.