• R Amathieu, J Sudrial, W Abdi, D Luis, H Hahouache, X Combes, and G Dhonneur.
• Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit Department, Jean Verdier University Hospital of Paris, Bondy, France.
• Br J Anaesth. 2012 Jan 1;108(1):140-5.

BackgroundWe undertook a prospective randomized comparison of the LMA Fastrach™, Airtraq™ laryngoscope, and GlideScope™ used for face-to-face tracheal intubation simulated to mimic an entrapped patient.MethodsThirty senior emergency medicine physicians were trained in the use of the LMA Fastrach™, GlideScope™, and Airtraq™ laryngoscope with a standard airway trainer manikin (control). Participants were then asked to perform tracheal intubation in two difficult situations simulated on a difficult airway management manikin wearing a cervical collar. In Situation 1, the manikin was in the supine position with a difficult airway caused by stiffening the cervical spine. In Situation 2, the manikin was positioned to simulate face-to-face tracheal intubation. We measured intubation times, success rates for tracheal intubation, and the difficulty of tracheal intubation. Values are means (sd).ResultsIn control and Situation 1, tracheal intubation details were similar. In Situation 2, face-to-face tracheal intubation success rate was increased with the Airtraq™ (100%), when compared with that of the GlideScope™ (70%, P<0.05) and LMA Fastrach™ (83%, P<0.05). Face-to-face tracheal intubation was less difficult (visual analogue scale: 0-100) with the Airtraq™ 11 (6) when compared with the GlideScope™ [33 (14) s, P<0.01)] and LMA Fastrach™ [22 (21) s, P<0.01]. The face-to-face tracheal intubation time was shorter with the Airtraq™ 14 (6) s than with the GlideScope™ [27 (18) s, P<0.01] and Fastrach™ [28 (10) s, P<0.01].ConclusionsThe Airtraq™ laryngoscope was superior to both the GlideScope™ and LMA Fastrach™ during simulated face-to-face difficult tracheal intubation.

28 keywords...

hide…