Journals / Anestezi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

A Prospective Randomized Study to Evaluate and Compare ILMA and Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway

ILMA ve Air-Q Laringeal Airway’i Değerlendiren ve Karşılaştıran Prospektif Randomize çalışma

Pages
219–225
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The first attempt blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in Group I.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) as a primary airway device and conduit for tracheal intubation and to compare it with the intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) which is currently the ‘gold standard’ supraglottic airway used as a conduit for tracheal intubation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Eighty patients of either sex, aged 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgery were allocated into two groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The first attempt blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in Group I.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) as a primary airway device and conduit for tracheal intubation and to compare it with the intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) which is currently the ‘gold standard’ supraglottic airway used as a conduit for tracheal intubation. Methods: Eighty patients of either sex, aged 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgery were allocated into two groups. In Group I (n=40), the intubating laryngeal mask airway was used to secure the airway and in Group A (n=40), the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway was used. Both devices were then compared and assessed as ventilation device and intubation conduit. Results: ILMA had a higher first attempt intubation success rate (95%) as compared to ILA (72.5%) but both devices were comparable with respect to ease of placement and total time required for intubation. Conclusion: Both ILMA and ILA were comparable as primary airway devices. The first attempt blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in Group I.

Özet

Amaç: Amacımız; birincil hava yolu aracı ve trakeal entübasyon için konduit olarak Air-Q entübasyon laringeal airwayi (ILA) değerlendirmek ve şu anda ‘altın standart’ supraglottik hava yolu olarak kullanılan entübasyon laringeal maske airway (ILMA) ile karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Elektif cerrahi planlanan 18-60 yaşları arasındaki her iki cinsiyetten 80 hasta iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup I’de (n=40) hava yolu güvenliğini sağlamak için entübasyon laringeal maske airway ve Grup A’da (n=40) Air-Q entübasyon laryngeal airway kullanıldı. Daha sonra her iki araç karşılaştırıldı ve ventilasyon aracı ve entübasyon konduiti olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: ILMA (%95), ILA’ya (%72.5) kıyasla daha yüksek ilk deneme entübasyon başarı oranına sahipti, ancak her iki araç da yerleştirme kolaylığı ve entübasyon için gereken toplam süre açısından benzerdi. Sonuç: Hem ILMA hem de ILA, birincil hava yolu araçları olarak benzerdi. İlk denemede kör entübasyon başarı oranı Grup I’de anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bhalotra, A., Wadhawa, R., Singh, A., Chugh, V. (2022). A Prospective Randomized Study to Evaluate and Compare ILMA and Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway. Anestezi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 219–225. https://ajindex.com/articles/440434

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Brain AI, Verghese C, Addy EV, Kapila A, Brimacombe J. The intubating laryngeal mask. 315 II: a preliminary clinical report of a new means of intubating the trachea. Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:704-9.
  2. Bakker EJ, Valkenburg M, Galvin EM. Pilot study of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in clinical use. Anaesthesia and intensive care. 2010;38:346-8.
  3. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 320 1984;39:1105-11.
  4. Klein MT, Jones J. Utility of the Intubating Laryngeal Airway®: report of an observational study. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:A846
  5. Danha RF, Thompson JL, Popat MT, Pandit JJ. Comparison of fibreoptic‐guided orotracheal intubation through classic and single‐use laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:184-8.
  6. Ferson DZ, Rosenblatt WH, Johansen MJ, Osborn I, Ovassapian A. Use of the intubating LMA-Fastrach™ in 254 patients with difficult-to-manage airways. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:1175-81.
  7. Baskett PJ, Parr M, Nolan JP. The intubating laryngeal maskResults of a multicentre trial 330 with experience of 500 cases. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:1174-9.
  8. Neoh EU, Choy YC. Comparison of the air-Q ILA™ and the LMA-Fastrach™ in airway management during general anaesthesia. SAJAA. 2012;18:150-5.
  9. Joo HS, Rose DK. The intubating laryngeal mask airway with and without fiberoptic guidance. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:662-6.
  10. Karim YM, Swanson DE. Comparison of blind tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (LMA FastrachTM) and the Air‐QTM. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:185-90.
  11. Malhotra SK, Bharath KV, Saini V. Comparison of success rate of intubation through air-Q with ILMA using two different endotracheal tubes. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:242-7.
  12. Abdel-Halim TM, El Enin MA, Elgoushi MM, Afifi MG, Atwa HS. Comparative study between Air-Q and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway when used as conduit for fiber-optic. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2014;30:107- 13.
  13. Panjwani S, Seymour P, Pandit JJ. A manoeuvre for