• Ichiro Takenaka, Kazuyoshi Aoyama, Tamao Iwagaki, and Tatsuo Kadoya.
• Department of Anaesthesia, Nippon Steel Yawata Memorial Hospital, Yahatahigashi-ku, Kitakyushu, Japan. takenaka.i@ns.yawata-mhp.or.jp
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011 Mar 1;28(3):164-8.

BackgroundThe Airway Scope (AWS) may become a rescue airway device to secure the airway in the lateral position. We evaluated the efficacy of the AWS on tracheal intubation in patients in this position in comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope.MethodsSeventy patients scheduled for surgery in the lateral position under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation were randomised into two groups: intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope and that with the AWS. After general anaesthesia and muscle relaxation, experienced anaesthetists performed laryngoscopy and intubation using either laryngoscope in the right or left lateral position. Laryngoscopic view, intubation time, intubation difficulty scale score and success rate of tracheal intubation (within 60 s) were recorded and compared between intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope and that with the AWS.ResultsIn the lateral position, the laryngoscopic view with the AWS was significantly better than that with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.01). Tracheal intubation was successful at the first attempt with the AWS in all patients and with the Macintosh laryngoscope in 85.3% of patients (P < 0.05). The median times to intubation with the AWS and with the Macintosh laryngoscope were 14 (interquartile range, 9-19) s and 29 (20-31) s, respectively (P < 0.01). Also, the AWS significantly reduced the intubation difficulty scale score compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.01).ConclusionIn the situation in which securing the airway in the lateral position is required, the AWS is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope.

20 keywords...

hide…