Comparison of laryngeal mask airway CTrach™ and Airtraq® videolaryngoscopes as conduits for endotracheal intubation in patients with simulated limitation of cervical spine movements by manual in-line stabilization

Madhu Rao, Lokvendra Budania, Vamsidhar Chamala, Kush Goyal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background and Aims: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) CTrach™ and Airtraq® videolaryngoscopes are useful for endotracheal intubation in patients with limited cervical spine movements and other predicted difficult airways. We aimed to compare LMA CTrach™ and Airtraq® videolaryngoscopes as conduits for endotracheal intubation in patients with simulated limitation of cervical spine movements by manual in-line stabilization (MILS). Material and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized study including 50 patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were assigned to undergo intubation using Airtraq® (n = 25) or LMA CTrach™ (n = 25) by an experienced anesthesiologist, while MILS was provided. Laryngoscopy and intubation were compared in terms of time taken to obtain optimal laryngeal view, successful intubation, total time, percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score, maneuvers required for optimal laryngeal view and alignment of endotracheal tube, and number of attempts and complications. An integrated score was calculated to classify the attempt as good, restricted, or poor. Results: Time taken to obtain optimal laryngeal view, successful intubation, and total time in both groups were comparable. POGO score >50% was seen in 25 and 21 patients in Groups A and C. Seventy-six percent and ninety-six percent in Groups A and C, respectively, had a good integrated score; 6% and 1% had restricted score; none had a poor score; and the difference between them was statistically significant (P = 0.042). Conclusions: LMA CTrach™ and Airtraq® are similar with respect to time taken for obtaining optimal laryngeal view, successful intubation, and total time when used for intubation in patients with simulated limitation of cervical spine movements.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)188-192
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-04-2018
Externally publishedYes

    Fingerprint

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)
  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this