Tomoki Nishiyama1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Higashi Omiya General Hospital, 5-18, Higashi Omiya, Minumaku, Saitama, 337-0051, Japan. nishit-tky@umin.ac.jp
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study was performed to 1. compare usefulness of the Airtraq (ATQ) and the Airway Scope (AWS) with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), 2. compare usefulness of the ATQ with the AWS, 3. compare usefulness of the AWS with the tip of the blade under the epiglottis as recommended by the manufacturer (AWS-Miller) and the AWS with the tip of the blade in the vallecula as the MAC (AWS-MAC), in tracheal intubation by expert anesthesiologists. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were divided into the ATQ, AWS-Miller, AWS-MAC, and the MAC groups of 30 patients each. Intubation was performed by expert anesthesiologists. How many attempts were necessary (number of the attempts), and the time required for successful tracheal intubation (intubation time) were compared among the four groups. RESULTS: In patients with Cormack and Lehane classification 1 and 2, the number of attempts was significantly larger in the AWS-Miller group than MAC and ATQ groups, and intubation time in the AWS-Miller group was significantly longer than those in the ATQ and MAC groups. In patients with Cormack and Lehane classification 3, intubation time was significantly shorter in the ATQ group than that in the MAC group. CONCLUSIONS: The MAC and ATQ were better than the AWS-Miller for patients with easy intubation, while the ATQ was better than the MAC for difficult intubation when the expert anesthesiologists did the intubation.
BACKGROUND: The present study was performed to 1. compare usefulness of the Airtraq (ATQ) and the Airway Scope (AWS) with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), 2. compare usefulness of the ATQ with the AWS, 3. compare usefulness of the AWS with the tip of the blade under the epiglottis as recommended by the manufacturer (AWS-Miller) and the AWS with the tip of the blade in the vallecula as the MAC (AWS-MAC), in tracheal intubation by expert anesthesiologists. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were divided into the ATQ, AWS-Miller, AWS-MAC, and the MAC groups of 30 patients each. Intubation was performed by expert anesthesiologists. How many attempts were necessary (number of the attempts), and the time required for successful tracheal intubation (intubation time) were compared among the four groups. RESULTS: In patients with Cormack and Lehane classification 1 and 2, the number of attempts was significantly larger in the AWS-Miller group than MAC and ATQ groups, and intubation time in the AWS-Miller group was significantly longer than those in the ATQ and MAC groups. In patients with Cormack and Lehane classification 3, intubation time was significantly shorter in the ATQ group than that in the MAC group. CONCLUSIONS: The MAC and ATQ were better than the AWS-Miller for patients with easy intubation, while the ATQ was better than the MAC for difficult intubation when the expert anesthesiologists did the intubation.