E H C Liu1, R W L Goy, F G Chen. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074. analiue@nus.edu.sg
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The LMA CTrach is a new laryngeal mask system consisting of an LMA CTrach Airway with integrated fibreoptic channels, and a detachable LMA CTrach Viewer. This system enables viewing of the larynx and aids endotracheal intubation through a laryngeal mask airway. Method. We used and evaluated this system in 100 adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery. Our primary outcomes were the success rates of LMA CTrach Airway insertion and endotracheal intubation with this system. RESULTS: We were able to insert the LMA CTrach Airway in and to ventilate all 100 patients. We were successful in endotracheal intubation, either under vision or blind, in 96 patients. We were able to view the larynx in 84 patients, but the quality of the best view obtained was very variable. The median (inter quartile range) time for the complete intubation process was 166 (114-233) s. The system allowed nearly continuous ventilation and oxygenation during the process. CONCLUSIONS: The LMA CTrach system has potential advantages over the LMA Fastrach system, including the ability to align the LMA outlet with the larynx and a high first intubation attempt success rate. However, it was difficult to view the larynx with the LMA CTrach compared with direct laryngoscopy, and expectations must be moderated.
BACKGROUND: The LMA CTrach is a new laryngeal mask system consisting of an LMA CTrach Airway with integrated fibreoptic channels, and a detachable LMA CTrach Viewer. This system enables viewing of the larynx and aids endotracheal intubation through a laryngeal mask airway. Method. We used and evaluated this system in 100 adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery. Our primary outcomes were the success rates of LMA CTrach Airway insertion and endotracheal intubation with this system. RESULTS: We were able to insert the LMA CTrach Airway in and to ventilate all 100 patients. We were successful in endotracheal intubation, either under vision or blind, in 96 patients. We were able to view the larynx in 84 patients, but the quality of the best view obtained was very variable. The median (inter quartile range) time for the complete intubation process was 166 (114-233) s. The system allowed nearly continuous ventilation and oxygenation during the process. CONCLUSIONS: The LMA CTrach system has potential advantages over the LMA Fastrach system, including the ability to align the LMA outlet with the larynx and a high first intubation attempt success rate. However, it was difficult to view the larynx with the LMA CTrach compared with direct laryngoscopy, and expectations must be moderated.