• Gen Owada, Takahiro Mihara, Gaku Inagawa, Ayako Asakura, Takahisa Goto, and Koui Ka.
• Department of Anaesthesiology, Kanagawa Children's Medical Centre, Yokohama, Japan.
• Plos One. 2017 Jan 1; 12 (2): e0171889.

BackgroundThe efficacy of devices for difficult intubation in paediatric patients, especially with a Cormack-Lehane grade 4 view, has yet to be established. We compared intubating parameters among three devices (the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes).MethodsThis study is a randomised cross-over trial. Participants were 20 anaesthetists. Each device was tested three times using a paediatric manikin with a Cormack-Lehane grade 4 view. The order to use each device was randomised by a computer-generated random sequence. The primary endpoint was the rate of successful intubation. Secondary endpoints included the time taken to intubate, percentage of glottic opening score, and severity of potential dental trauma.ResultsThe successful intubation rates of the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes were 100%, 72%, and 45%, respectively. The risk ratio of the success rates of Airtraq® compared with McGrath® and Macintosh laryngoscopes were 1.40 (95% CI; 1.19-1.64, P < 0.001) and 2.22 (95% CI; 1.68-2.94, P < 0.001), respectively. The modified Cormack-Lehane grade and percentage of the glottic opening score were better for the Airtraq® than for the other devices. The dental trauma score was lower for the Airtraq® than for the other devices. There were no significant differences in the intubation time among the groups.ConclusionsThe Airtraq® had higher success rate, had better visibility, and was associated with less dental trauma than the other devices in a difficult paediatric intubation model with a Cormack-Lehane grade 4 view.

12 keywords...

hide…