Comparison of Intubation Success Rate using Airtraq Laryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway in Novice Users with Prior Airway Management Experience: A Prospective Randomised Study.

Background and Aims: Securing the airway without morbidity is of prime importance. The difficult airway cart should have some advanced airway aids if not all. In this study we evaluated Airtraq laryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) as intubating devices in novice users who were well accomplished in intubation using direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blade. Both the devices were used because of relatively lesser cost, portability and all in one compact design not requiring any setup. Methods: 60 consenting American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) Grade I and II patients, weighing 50 to 70 were randomly assigned to be intubated by Airtraq or ILMA. Primary Aim was to compare success rate and intubation time. Comparison of ease of intubation and postoperative pharyngeal morbidity were the secondary end points. Results: Success rate of intubation was higher in ILMA group (100%) than Airtraq (80%) [P = 0.0237]. However, in successful intubations the time for intubation was significantly less with Airtraq (Group A = 45.37 ± 27.55, Group I = 77.6 ± 31.85; P = 0.0003). No significant difference was noted in ease of intubation, number of optimizing manoeuvres to facilitate intubation and postoperative pharyngeal morbidity. Conclusion: In Clinicians who are well versed with laryngoscopy using Macintosh blade but new to Airtraq and ILMA, success rate of intubation is higher with ILMA. Prolonged intubation time in ILMA should not deter its use in difficult airway scenarios because of the ability to ventilate through it.