Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Nasal vs oral intubation.

L Holzapfel1

  • 1Service de réanimation, Centre Hospitalier, Bourg en Bresse, France. lholzapfel@ch-bourg01.fr

Minerva Anestesiologica
|May 28, 2003
PubMed
Summary

Oral intubation is faster and less painful, but nasal intubation offers benefits for conscious patients and reduces laryngeal complications. Both routes have distinct advantages and disadvantages for airway management.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and somatisation in recently arrived refugees in Germany: an epidemiological study.

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences·2019
Same author

[Selective activation of alarms for monitoring arterial pressure: effect of noise pollution in recovery].

Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation·2002
Same author

[Selective activation of blood pressure monitoring alarms: effect of noise pollution in the intensive care unit].

Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation·2001
Same author

Guidelines for selective activation of alarms for blood pressure monitoring: effect on noise pollution.

Critical care medicine·2001
Same author

Phase II clinical trial of sipatrigine (619C89) by continuous infusion in acute stroke.

Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)·2000
Same author

Nadroparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in acute decompensated COPD. The Association of Non-University Affiliated Intensive Care Specialist Physicians of France.

American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine·2000

Area of Science:

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Anesthesiology
  • Critical Care

Background:

  • Airway management is crucial in medical emergencies.
  • Nasal and oral intubation are common methods for securing the airway.
  • Each intubation route presents unique benefits and drawbacks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the advantages and disadvantages of nasal versus oral intubation.
  • To guide the selection of the optimal intubation route based on patient condition and clinical scenario.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature comparing oral and nasal intubation techniques.
  • Analysis of complications, ease of procedure, patient comfort, and outcomes associated with each route.

Main Results:

  • Oral intubation is quicker, easier, and less painful under direct laryngoscopy.
  • Nasal intubation is a viable option for conscious, unsedated patients and may reduce laryngeal complications.
  • Nasal intubation can lead to bleeding and injury but improves patient comfort and reduces oral trauma.

Conclusions:

  • The choice between nasal and oral intubation depends on the clinical context, including patient consciousness and trauma status.
  • Oral intubation is preferred in trauma patients requiring cervical immobilization.
  • Nasal intubation may be advantageous for patient comfort and preventing certain complications, despite risks like sinusitis.

Related Experiment Videos