Comparison of success rate of intubation through Air-Q with ILMA using two different endotracheal tubes

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Air-Q™ is a newly introduced airway device, which can be used to facilitate endotracheal intubation. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether use of two different endotracheal tubes (ETTs) (standard polyvinyl chloride [PVC] and reinforced PVC) increases the success rate of blind intubation through Air-Q™ (Group Q) when compared with intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA- Fastrach™) keeping ILMA as control (Group I).

Methods:

One hundred and twenty patients aged between 18 and 60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were enrolled into this prospective, randomised, case–control study to compare the success rate of tracheal intubation between ILMA (Fastrach™) and Air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway. Those patients with anticipated difficult airway were excluded from the study. All the recruited patients completed the study. Reinforced PVC ETT was used in both airway devices to secure intubation. Since standard PVC tube is recommended for use in Air-Q, when first intubation attempt failed, second or third attempt was made with standard PVC ETT. Total of three attempts were made for each procedure: Whereas in ILMA group, only reinforced tube was used in all three attempts.

Results:

The overall success rate after three attempts was more with Air-Q (96.6%) in our study compared with ILMA (91.6%) but no significant difference was seen between the groups ( P = 0.43).

Conclusion:

The present study shows that when intubation with reinforced tube fails, the success rate with use of conventional PVC tube is more with Air-Q when compared with ILMA.