• A Nileshwar and A Thudamaladinne.
• Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India. anitharshenoy@yahoo.co.in
• Br J Anaesth. 2007 Aug 1;99(2):292-6.

BackgroundIntubation of a patient with limited cervical spine movement or in whom movement of the cervical spine is not desirable is always a challenge even to the most experienced anaesthesiologist. The intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and the Bullard laryngoscope (BL) are two instruments recommended for endotracheal intubation of such patients. We compared their utility and safety in patients with simulated cervical spine immobility using manual inline stabilization (MILS).MethodsSixty-two patients, ASA I or II, between 18 and 65 yr, were enrolled in this prospective and randomized study. They were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: Group BL (Bullard laryngoscope) and Group IL (Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway). The patients were intubated orally using either equipment after induction of general anaesthesia.ResultsThe success rate for intubation in the first or second attempt was higher in Group BL [90.32% (28/31)] than in Group IL [74.2% (23/31)] but was not statistically significant. The number of attempts taken for intubation and the total time to intubate were similar between the groups. Trauma as evidenced by blood on endotracheal tube or sore throat was similar in both groups.ConclusionsBoth the BL and the ILMA are useful equipment in intubating patients with limitation of cervical movements. Although not statistically significant, the BL may provide a higher success rate of intubation when compared with the ILMA.

23 keywords...

hide…