Volume : 5
Issue : 4
Online ISSN : 2394-4994
Print ISSN : 2394-4781
Article First Page : 543
Article End Page : 548
Introduction: Conventional laryngoscopy using the traditional Macintosh blade remains the commonest method of tracheal intubation in the routine clinical scenario. Video laryngoscopes have taken over this position in many scenarios as they have been proved successful over conventional laryngoscope. There are several types of video laryngoscopes available with multiple advantages over one another. We aimed to compare the performance of the Airtraq and McGrath when performing tracheal intubation in routine anaesthesia practice.
Materials and Methods: Sixty patients posted for surgery requiring endotracheal intubation were randomized to undergo intubation using an Airtraq (n=30) or McGrath (n=30) video laryngoscope. Primary end points were total duration of intubation, overall success rate of tracheal intubation, number of optimization manoeuvres used and ease of intubation between the two groups.
Results: We observed that the duration of successful intubation was shorter in Airtraq 19.18 (±2.86) secs) than in the McGrath laryngoscope.27 (±5.09) secs)* P < 0>A significantly better Cormack lehane view was obtained with the Airtraq. Grade I in 73.3% with the Airtraq group versus 50% in the McGrath group, p<0> Conclusion: We conclude that the Airtraq laryngoscope facilitates a more rapid and successful intubation as compared to McGrath in routine clinical practice.
Keywords: Airtraq, McGrath, Intubation.