A comparison between Air-Q® intubating laryngeal mask airway and C-MAC® video laryngoscope for intubation in simulated difficult intubation patients with cervical collar
Background: Special airway devices are useful adjunct during difficult airway situation. The aim of this study was to compare between Air-Q® intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and C-MAC® video laryngoscope in term of effectiveness of intubation, intubation time, haemodynamic changes and comp...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.usm.my/45867/1/Dr.%20Donna%20Sumpat-24%20pages.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: Special airway devices are useful adjunct during difficult airway
situation. The aim of this study was to compare between Air-Q® intubating laryngeal
mask airway (ILMA) and C-MAC® video laryngoscope in term of effectiveness of
intubation, intubation time, haemodynamic changes and complication post intubation in
stimulated using cervical collar.
Methods: 80 patients, age 18-60 years, ASA I-II, with no features of difficult intubation
who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomized
into two groups: Group Air-Q (n=40) and Group C-MAC (n=40). After successful
induction with IV fentanyl (1-1.5 mcg/kg), IV propofol (1.5-2 mcg/kg) and IV
rocuronium (1 mg/kg), cervical collar was applied to all patients. Group Air-Q was
inserted with Air-Q® ILMA followed with blind intubation through it. Group C-MAC
was intubated using C-MAC® video laryngoscope. The ease of intubation, intubation
time, haemodynamic changes and complications were recorded.
Results: C-MAC® video laryngoscope showed higher successful rate of first attempt
intubation than Air-Q® ILMA (100% vs 55%, P=0.001). Requirement of optimization
however was significantly more in Air-Q® ILMA than C-MAC® video laryngoscope
(37.5% vs 5.0%, P=0.001). Mean duration of intubation was shorter in C-MAC® than
Air-Q® ILMA (57.8±14.4s vs 164.6±58.0s, P=0.001). There was no significance
difference in haemodynamic parameters and complication in post intubation.
Conclusion: Intubation with C-MAC® video laryngoscope was better in success rate
and shorter in intubation time than blind intubation with Air-Q® ILMA in simulated
difficult airway patients. However, the complication post intubation was comparable. |
|---|