A response to ‘Bougie trauma – it is still possible’, Prabhu A, Pradham P, Sanaka R and Bilolikar A, Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 811–12
Article first published online: 16 JAN 2004
Volume 59, Issue 2, page 204, February 2004
How to Cite
Armstrong, P. and Sellers, W. F. S. (2004), A response to ‘Bougie trauma – it is still possible’, Prabhu A, Pradham P, Sanaka R and Bilolikar A, Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 811–12. Anaesthesia, 59: 204. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2003.03632.x
- Issue published online: 16 JAN 2004
- Article first published online: 16 JAN 2004
We think the lung trauma described by Prabhu et al. (Anaesthesia 2003: 58: 811–3) was caused by a straight tip Eschmann gum elastic bougie and not by a coude tip (bent tip) one because:
- 1A straight tip will not sense tracheal rings; none were felt.
- 2Hold up occurred very deep at 50 cm; normal depth for a female using coude tip would be 30–35 cm.
- 3Knowledge of the two types of bougie is not universal .
- 4Kettering hospital has both coude and non-coude tip introducers.
If you push a coude tip into a plungerless 2 ml syringe (which mimics a bronchus), you can easily see why the coude tip does not plug and split a bronchus.