Comparison of the Airtraq video laryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in the pediatric patients
A prospective randomized controlled trial
Keywords:
stress response, position, airway, intubation, children, video laryngoscopeAbstract
Securing a patent airway in patients undergoing general anesthesia is routinely done using gold standard methods of direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh or Miller laryngoscope blade in children. However, this technique has several limitations. Video laryngoscopes provide the user with a better view of the larynx. We undertook this prospective, randomized, controlled trial to determine the intubation time of Airtraq compared with Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric patients, number of intubation attempts, quality of visualization, optimization maneuvers, easiness of intubation, and cardiovascular changes during intubation. A total of 80 pediatric patients of either sex, between ages three to twelve years, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status I and II, who were divided equally into two groups using the sealed envelope technique. Patients were randomly assigned to be intubated with either Airtraq (Group A) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group M). The difference between the time required for intubation within the two groups was significant (p < 0.05), optimization maneuvers were more required for Group M than Group A (p < 0.01). Quality of visualization was better in Group A compared with patients in Group M (p < 0.05).
Downloads
References
Shimada N, Hirabayashi Y, Taga N, Takeuchi M, Seo N. [Airtraq optical laryngoscope: clinical assessment of its performance in 100 children]. Masui. 2011;60(2):168-72.
Riad W, Moussa A, Wong DT. Airtraq™ versus Macintoch laryngoscope in intubation performance in the paediatric population. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012;6(4):332-355.
Hirabayashi Y, Fujita A, Seo N, Sugimoto H. A comparison of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy using the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscopes. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(6):635-40.
Xue FS, Liu HP, Liao X, Yuan YJ, Liu JH. Endotracheal intubation with Airtraq® optical laryngoscope in the paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21(6):703-4.
Vlatten A, Fielding A, Bernard A, Litz S, MacManus B, Soder C. Comparison of the airtraq laryngoscope to the direct laryngoscopy in the paediatric airway. J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2012;1(2):71-76.
Rendeki S, Keresztes D, Woth G, Mérei Á, Rozanovic M, Rendeki M, Farkas J, Mühl D, Nagy B et al. Comparison of VividTrac®, Airtraq®, King Vision®, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for difficult and normal airways in mannequins by novices. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17(1):68.
Szarpak L, Karczewska K, Evrin T, Kurowski A, Czyzewski L. Comparison of intubation through the McGrath MAC, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller Laryngoscope by paramedics during child CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(7):946-50.
Ramesh S, Jayanthi R, Archana SR. Paediatric airway management: What is new? Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56(5):448-53.
9.Wajekar, Anjana S, Kotak, Nirav, Patel, Rajendra, Moharir, Rohit et al. Successful Airtraq® use for emergency off-centre glottic intubation in a patient with post-dialysis neck haematoma. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016;60(11):872-873.
Hazarika R, Rajkhowa T, Nath MP, Parua S, Kundu R. Airtraq® versus Coopdech® Video Laryngoscope for Intubation Performance in the Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Single Hospital Study. Int J Sci Stud. 2016;4(1):78-80.
Castle N., Gangaram P., Tong J.L., Spencer N.H., Pillay B., Pillay Y. Intubation using the Miller and Airtraq™ laryngoscopes: A paediatric manikin study. African Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011;1(1):25-29.
Ali QE, Amir SH, Firdaus U, Siddiqui OA, Azhar AZ. A comparative study of the efficacy of Pediatric Airtraq® with conventional laryngoscope in children. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79(12):1366-70.
Gupta A, Sharma R, Gupta N. Evolution of videolaryngoscopy in pediatric population. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021;37(1):14-27.
Bhandari G, Shahi KS, Asad M, Bhakuni R. Airtraq(®) versus Macintosh laryngoscope: A comparative study in tracheal intubation. Anesth Essays Res. 2013;7(2):232–236.
Lu Y, Jiang H, Zhu YS. Airtraq laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(12):1160-7.
Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(1):53-9.
Ali QE, Amir SH, Jamil S, Ahmad S. A comparative evaluation of the Airtraq and King Vision video laryngoscope as an intubating aid in adult patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2015;66(3):81-5.
Kaki AM, Almarakbi WA, Fawzi HM, Boker AM. Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and Glidescope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical students' hands: A manikin study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5(4):376-81.
19.Alvis BD, Hester D, Watson D, Higgins M, St Jacques P. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82(1):30-5.
20. Di Marco P, Scattoni L, Spinoglio A, Luzi M, Canneti A, Pietropaoli P, Reale C et al. Learning curves of the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation by novice laryngoscopists: a clinical study. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(1):122-5.
21. Maharaj CH, Costello JF, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Evaluation of the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(2):182-188.
22.Sørensen MK, Holm-Knudsen R. Endotracheal intubation with airtraq® versus storz® videolaryngoscope in children younger than two years – a randomized pilot-study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12(1):7.
White MC, Marsh CJ, Beringer RM, Nolan JA, Choi AY, Medlock KE, Mason DG et al. A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(3):226-231.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 International journal of health sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJHS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJHS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
This copyright notice applies to articles published in IJHS volumes 4 onwards. Please read about the copyright notices for previous volumes under Journal History.
