Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Kavitha Girish, Thilaka Muthiah, Dalim Kumar Baidya, Renu Sinha, Vimi Rewari, Souvik Maitra, Manpreet Kaur, Rajeshwari Subramaniam
{"title":"Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Kavitha Girish, Thilaka Muthiah, Dalim Kumar Baidya, Renu Sinha, Vimi Rewari, Souvik Maitra, Manpreet Kaur, Rajeshwari Subramaniam","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2024.241624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) is associated with a 58-77% success rate in blind intubation. The newer laryngeal mask airway (LMA) blockbuster is specially designed to facilitate easier endotracheal intubation and may have a higher success rate. The current study aimed to compare the success rate of endotracheal intubation using the Air-Q ILA and LMA blockbuster.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After ethics committee approval and informed written consent, 140 adult patients with normal airways who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation were recruited for this randomized controlled trial. Blind endotracheal intubation was performed using the Air-Q ILA in group A and the LMA blockbuster in group B with special maneuvers and/or tubes in the second attempt. Fibreoptic bronchoscope (FOB) guidance was used in the third attempt if required. The primary outcome was the success rate of intubation without FOB assistance. The number of attempts for supraglottic airway (SGA) insertion, the time taken for SGA insertion, and the overall intubation time was also noted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rate of intubation without FOB guidance was significantly higher in group B than in group A [91.4% vs 55.7%; relative risk (RR) 1.68; (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34, 2.11); p<0.0001]. The number of attempts for SGA insertion was similar in groups A and group B [87% vs 90%; RR 1.03; (95% CI-0.92, 1.16); p=0.60]. The times for successful SGA insertion and endotracheal intubation were also similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LMA blockbuster offers a significantly higher success rate for endotracheal intubation without FOB guidance than the Air-Q ILA in adult patients with normal airways. However, an increased success rate was achieved with the use of a specially designed flexible endotracheal tube and maneuvers.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"52 4","pages":"147-153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2024.241624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) is associated with a 58-77% success rate in blind intubation. The newer laryngeal mask airway (LMA) blockbuster is specially designed to facilitate easier endotracheal intubation and may have a higher success rate. The current study aimed to compare the success rate of endotracheal intubation using the Air-Q ILA and LMA blockbuster.

Methods: After ethics committee approval and informed written consent, 140 adult patients with normal airways who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation were recruited for this randomized controlled trial. Blind endotracheal intubation was performed using the Air-Q ILA in group A and the LMA blockbuster in group B with special maneuvers and/or tubes in the second attempt. Fibreoptic bronchoscope (FOB) guidance was used in the third attempt if required. The primary outcome was the success rate of intubation without FOB assistance. The number of attempts for supraglottic airway (SGA) insertion, the time taken for SGA insertion, and the overall intubation time was also noted.

Results: The success rate of intubation without FOB guidance was significantly higher in group B than in group A [91.4% vs 55.7%; relative risk (RR) 1.68; (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34, 2.11); p<0.0001]. The number of attempts for SGA insertion was similar in groups A and group B [87% vs 90%; RR 1.03; (95% CI-0.92, 1.16); p=0.60]. The times for successful SGA insertion and endotracheal intubation were also similar between the groups.

Conclusion: The LMA blockbuster offers a significantly higher success rate for endotracheal intubation without FOB guidance than the Air-Q ILA in adult patients with normal airways. However, an increased success rate was achieved with the use of a specially designed flexible endotracheal tube and maneuvers.

在接受择期手术的成人中使用 Air-Q ILA 和 LMA Blockbuster 进行气管插管的比较:随机对照试验
目的:Air-Q 插管喉气道(ILA)的盲插成功率为 58%-77%。较新的喉罩气道(LMA)blockbuster 是专门为方便气管插管而设计的,成功率可能更高。本研究旨在比较使用 Air-Q ILA 和 LMA blockbuster 进行气管插管的成功率:在获得伦理委员会批准和知情书面同意后,本随机对照试验招募了 140 名气道正常、计划在全身麻醉下进行需要气管插管的择期手术的成年患者。A 组使用 Air-Q ILA 进行盲气管插管,B 组使用 LMA blockbuster 进行盲气管插管,并在第二次尝试时使用特殊手法和/或管道。如有需要,在第三次尝试时使用纤维支气管镜(FOB)引导。主要结果是在没有 FOB 协助的情况下插管的成功率。此外,还记录了插入声门上气道(SGA)的尝试次数、插入 SGA 所需的时间以及总体插管时间:结果:在没有 FOB 引导的情况下,B 组的插管成功率明显高于 A 组[91.4% vs 55.7%;相对风险 (RR) 1.68;(95% 置信区间 (CI) 1.34, 2.11);p 结论:LMA Blockbuster 可为患者提供更高的插管成功率:在气道正常的成年患者中,LMA blockbuster 在无 FOB 引导的情况下提供的气管插管成功率明显高于 Air-Q ILA。不过,使用专门设计的柔性气管导管和操作可提高成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信