Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
By submitting manuscripts to SAJAA, authors of original articles are assigning copyright to the SA Society of Anaesthesiologists. Authors may use their own work after publication without written permission, provided they acknowledge the original source. Individuals and academic institutions may freely copy and distribute articles published in SAJAA for educational and research purposes without obtaining permission.
Main Article Content
Comparison of the air-Q ILA™ and the LMA-Fastrach™ in airway management during general anaesthesia
Abstract
One hundred and sixty patients aged between 20-60 years with ASA physical status I-II, undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were enrolled into this prospective, randomised, double-blinded study to compare the success rate of tracheal intubation between the air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) and the laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-Fastrach™ (80 patients in each group). The degree of mouth opening, occurrence of coughing, laryngospasm, ease of insertion, adequacy of ventilation, and number of attempts were recorded during the insertion of the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™. Tracheal intubation via the supraglottic airway devices was then performed, and cricoid manipulation, ease of insertion and number of attempts, were noted. Postoperatively, the degree to which patients had a sore throat using visual analogue scale (VAS), hoarseness of voice and blood on the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™ were recorded. In terms of ease of insertion,
there was no statistically significant difference between the insertion of the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™. However, in terms of ease of tracheal intubation, the LMA-Fastrach™ group was superior (p-value = 0.001) in terms of external cricoid manipulation requirement, ease of intubation, and the number of attempts (p-value = 0.009). The success of blind intubation, with up to three attempts, was 77 (97.47%) and 60 (75%) patients, in the LMA-Fastrach™ and air-Q™ ILA groups, respectively.
In conclusion, there was no statistical difference between the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™ in terms of ease of insertion, incidence of adverse response, and adequacy of ventilation. However, tracheal intubation was superior using the LMAFastrach ™, rather than the air-Q™ ILA.
there was no statistically significant difference between the insertion of the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™. However, in terms of ease of tracheal intubation, the LMA-Fastrach™ group was superior (p-value = 0.001) in terms of external cricoid manipulation requirement, ease of intubation, and the number of attempts (p-value = 0.009). The success of blind intubation, with up to three attempts, was 77 (97.47%) and 60 (75%) patients, in the LMA-Fastrach™ and air-Q™ ILA groups, respectively.
In conclusion, there was no statistical difference between the air-Q™ ILA and the LMA-Fastrach™ in terms of ease of insertion, incidence of adverse response, and adequacy of ventilation. However, tracheal intubation was superior using the LMAFastrach ™, rather than the air-Q™ ILA.
