Comparison of Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults—a randomised study

Authors

Abstract

Background
Airway management by intubation is considered a major responsibility and vital skill for anaesthesiologists. Direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation under vision continues to be the gold standard for airway management. Though conventional laryngoscopy is done with Macintosh blade, it has its own drawbacks. The Airtraq™ is a tube/guide channelled video-laryngoscope and can be used in patients with normal as well as difficult airway. On literature review, studies comparing intubation time with Airtraq™ and Macintosh laryngoscopes have shown heterogeneous results. Therefore, the present study was designed to compare the Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults.
Results
The median time to intubation was significantly longer in group A [45 (27–77) s] than in group M [24 (21–26) s] ( < 0.001). In both groups, 96% patients had POGO score 75–100% and CL grade I. Intubation was noted to be in 88% cases in group A and 92% in group M (0.05). Three cases in group A required a second attempt for successful intubation, whereas in group M, all cases were intubated in the first attempt (0.05). Hemodynamic parameters and complications were comparable among the groups (0.05).
Conclusions
Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope took longer time for intubation than Macintosh laryngoscope. However, both the devices were similar in terms of glottic view, ease of intubation, number of intubation attempts, incidence of failed intubation, hemodynamic changes, and complications. The overall performance of Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope was similar to Macintosh laryngoscope in patients having normal airways.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics