• Anaesthesia · Mar 2012

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children.

    • R M Beringer, M C White, C J Marsh, J A Nolan, A Y S Choi, K E Medlock, and D G Mason.
    • Department of Anaesthetics, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK. mcwdoc@doctors.org.uk
    • Anaesthesia. 2012 Mar 1;67(3):226-31.

    AbstractThe Airtraq(™) optical laryngoscope became available in paediatric sizes in the UK in May 2008. We conducted a randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq with conventional laryngoscopy during routine anaesthesia in children. We hypothesised that the Airtraq laryngoscope would perform as well as conventional laryngoscopy. Sixty patients (20 infants and 40 children) were recruited. The mean (SD) intubation time using the Airtraq was longer than conventional laryngoscopy overall (47.3 (32.6) vs 26.3 (11.5) s; p=0.002), though the difference was only significant for children (p=0.003) and not for infants (p=0.29). The Airtraq provided a better view of the larynx compared with conventional laryngoscopy (in infants (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (95-100 [90-100]) vs 77 (50-90 [40-100]), respectively; p=0.001; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (9.2-9.5 [8.2-10.0]) vs 6.8 (5.1-8.0 [4.7-10.0]), respectively; p=0.001). In children, the Airtraq provided a similar view of the larynx (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (100-100 [40-100]) vs 100 (90-100 [50-100]), respectively; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [7.0-10.0]) vs 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [5.6-10.0]), respectively; both p>0.05), compared with conventional laryngoscopy.Anaesthesia © 2012 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.