| Literature DB >> 29109636 |
Kush Ashokkumar Goyal1, Shaji Mathew1, Arun Kumar Handigodu Duggappa1, Kanika P Nanda2, Souvik Chaudhuri1, Renganathan Sockalingam1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Airtraq™ video laryngoscope facilitates tracheal intubations in patients with difficult airway or cervical spine immobilization. However, curved reinforced tracheal tube and straight reinforced tracheal tubes are useful where neck of the patient is likely to be moved or flexed or if patient is in prone position, wherein nonreinforced endotracheal tube (ETT) might get kinked and/or compressed. We compared intubation success rate of curved and straight reinforced tracheal tubes with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tracheal tube using Airtaq™ laryngoscope in paralyzed and anesthetized patients.Entities:
Keywords: Airtraq™ laryngoscope; airway management; intubation
Year: 2017 PMID: 29109636 PMCID: PMC5672516 DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.214312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol ISSN: 0970-9185
Demographic data
Rate of successful intubation
Number of attempts at endotracheal intubation
Number of optimization maneuvers required to aid endotracheal intubation
Reasons for failure to intubate
Figure 1Different angles formed between the polyvinyl chloride tube (angle a), straight reinforced tube (angle b) as well as curved reinforced tube (angle c) and the tip of Airtraq™ laryngoscope blade (Prodol Meditec S.A., Vizcaya, Spain)
Figure 2(a) Portex® polyvinyl chloride tracheal tube (Smiths Healthcare Manufacturing S.A., California, USA); (b) Portex® straight reinforced tracheal tube (Smiths Healthcare Manufacturing S.A., California, USA); (c) Rusch curved reinforced tracheal tube (Teleflex Medical Sdn., Kamunting, Malaysia)