Anaesthesia
-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Airtraq laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The Airtraq laryngoscope is a single-use laryngoscope designed to facilitate tracheal intubation in patients with either normal or difficult airways. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the Airtraq with the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Data were retrieved from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane register of controlled trials, and by a manual search of bibliographies. ⋯ The Airtraq reduced intubation time significantly (mean difference -15 s; 95% CI -25 to -4 s, p < 0.00001) used by both experienced anaesthetists and novices, and it increased the first attempt success rate only in novices (relative risk 1.25; 95% CI 1.05-1.49, p = 0.07). The incidence of oesophageal intubation (relative risk 0.12; 95% CI 0.03-0.48, p < 0.05) was significantly reduced by the Airtraq. We conclude that the Airtraq laryngoscope facilitates a more rapid and accurate intubation, especially when used by novices.
-
We highlight the areas we think important for future development of the subspeciality. The ultimate goal is to improve patient care and safety and to do this, we need to identify how and where episodes of harm arise. Simply continuing with current practice does not represent the best path towards our ultimate goal; objective evidence is needed to inform changes in practice.
-
We applied the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in 52 consecutive patients who were found to have an unexpected Cormack and Lehane grade-3 (n = 49) and grade-4 (n = 3) laryngeal view with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The glottic view improved in 49 (94%) patients using the C-MAC. ⋯ In one patient, tracheal intubation failed using the C-MAC despite the presence of a Cormack and Lehane grade-2. These results suggest that the C-MAC videolaryngoscope has a role as a rescue device in cases of an initially difficult laryngeal view.
-
Determination of the utility of the Intubation Difficulty Scale for use with indirect laryngoscopes.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Intubation Difficulty Scale is meaningful when used with indirect laryngoscopes. Data were analysed from previously published clinical trials from our group that compared the indirect laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope. For each laryngoscope type, the Intubation Difficulty Scale score obtained for each tracheal intubation was correlated with data for duration of the intubation attempt and with the user rated difficulty of the intubation attempt. ⋯ In contrast, the correlation between user rated difficulty scores and the data for duration of tracheal intubation was not different between the device types. The Intubation Difficulty Scale performs less well with indirect laryngoscopes than with the Macintosh laryngoscope. These findings suggest the need for caution with the use of this score with indirect laryngoscopes.