A comparison of the Pentax Airway Scope™ with the Airtraq™ in an infant manikin.

We compared the Pentax Airway Scope(TM) with the Airtraq(TM) optical laryngoscope in an infant manikin. Twenty-three anaesthetists randomly performed tracheal intubation: at rest, (a) with the Airway Scope and (b) with the Airtraq; and during chest compressions, (c) with the Airway Scope and (d) with the Airtraq. The success rate, modified Cormack and Lehane classification for glottic view, time taken to view the glottis, and time to place the tracheal tube were recorded. There was no difference in intubation success rate or quality of glottic view between the two devices. The median (IQR [range]) time taken to obtain a view of the glottis was 4.5 (3.7-6.4 [1.8-14.0]) s using the Airway Scope compared with 7.1 (5.5-9.6 [3.3-12.0]) s using the Airtraq (p = 0.001), and to successful placement of the tracheal tube was 8.3 (6.8-9.4 [3.7-20.7]) s using the Airway Scope compared with 11.2 (10.4-13.8 [4.9-23.7]) s using the Airtraq (p = 0.001). During chest compressions, the median (IQR [range]) time taken to view the glottis was 5.1 (4.0-7.2 [2.0-12.4]) s using the Airway Scope compared with 7.5 (5.0-13.2 [4.2-26.4]) s using the Airtraq (p = 0.006), and to successful placement of the tracheal tube was 9.5 (6.6-13.7 [4.5-16.2]) s using the Airway Scope compared with 11.7 (9.1-18.1 [6.2-37.4]) s using the Airtraq (p = 0.022). We conclude that both devices provided good quality views of the glottis and successful tracheal intubation in an infant manikin both at rest and during external chest compressions. Use of the Airway Scope resulted in a shorter time to view the glottis and perform successful tracheal intubation compared with the Airtraq. Anaesthesia