• Users Online: 224
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 101-110

Intubating laryngeal mask airway and air-Q for blind tracheal intubation


Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Moustafa Abo Shamaa
Department of Anaesthesia, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Barid El Messalah, Alexandria
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2356-9115.178901

Rights and Permissions

Background Airway management remains an important problem in the practice of anesthesia. The present study was carried out to compare intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and air-Q for blind tracheal intubation during surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and methods This study was carried out on 70 adult patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures under general anesthesia with controlled ventilation such as gynecological, orthopedic, ophthalmic, or general surgery lasting up to 2 h. Data were collected on airway assessment, hemodynamic changes, insertion time of the device and the endotracheal tube, number of attempts of blind tracheal intubation, ease of insertion, and complications. Results Airway assessment parameters were similar in patients of both groups. The incidence of hemodynamic changes was significantly higher in the air-Q group than the fastrack group and the insertion time of the endotracheal tube as well as the percentage of ease of insertion in group I (fastrack) showed a statistically significantly higher value than group II (air-Q). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of insertion attempts (a success rate of 88.57% for the fastrack vs. a success rate of 82.86% for the air-Q) and the complications. Conclusion Both the fastrack and the air-Q are suitable devices for blind tracheal intubation. The fastrack has a higher success rate in terms of blind tracheal intubation than the air-Q.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed292    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded127    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal