• Nadeem Raza, Muazzam Hasan, Syed Moeid Ahmed, Shahjahan Bano, and Manazir Athar.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, JNMC, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.
• J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Apr 1; 33 (2): 221-225.

Background And AimsMany cases of difficult tracheal intubation remain unrecognized until after induction of anesthesia. McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes are among the novel laryngoscopes that have an advantage over the conventional laryngoscopes in case of unanticipated difficult airway. Thus, we did a comparative study between McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes to evaluate their efficacy in routine anesthesia practice.Material And MethodsSixty anesthetized patients were divided into two groups using computer-based randomization, and tracheal intubation was performed using either McGrath or Airtraq laryngoscope. The primary outcome measures were duration and incidence of successful tracheal intubation. Hemodynamic response, glottic view (percentage of glottic opening score [POGO]), ease of intubation, and airway complications were also measured.ResultsBoth McGrath and Airtraq groups were comparable in terms of incidence of successful tracheal intubation (93.3% vs. 96.6%), ease of intubation (70% vs. 77%), and POGO scoring. Intubation time was significantly shorter with Airtraq (13.5 vs. 17.8 s; P < 0.001). There were statistically significant changes in the heart rate and blood pressure after tracheal intubation in both the groups (P < 0.001); however, these parameters reached baseline within 5 min of intubation in both the groups. The incidence of injury was 10% with McGrath videolaryngoscope and 13.3% with Airtraq and was comparable.ConclusionBoth Airtraq and McGrath videolaryngoscope have high success rates of intubation. Airtraq is better than McGrath laryngoscope due to shorter tracheal intubation time.

3 keywords...

hide…