Comparison of the air-Q ILA and the LMA-Fastrach in airway management during general anaesthesia

E. U. Neoh, Choy Yin Choy

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    9 Citations (Scopus)

    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 LMA-Fastrach , rather than the air-Q ILA.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)150-155
    Number of pages6
    JournalSouthern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia
    Volume18
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Laryngeal Masks
    Airway Management
    General Anesthesia
    Air
    Intubation
    Ventilation
    Laryngismus
    Hoarseness
    Pharyngitis
    Visual Analog Scale
    Mouth
    Equipment and Supplies
    Incidence

    Keywords

    • Blind tracheal intubation
    • Intubating laryngeal mask airway
    • Supraglottic airway
    • The air-Q intubating laryngeal airway
    • The LMA-fastrach

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

    Cite this

    Comparison of the air-Q ILA and the LMA-Fastrach in airway management during general anaesthesia. / Neoh, E. U.; Choy, Choy Yin.

    In: Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2012, p. 150-155.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{a277cf48302e469e82c3c6508d83b4f6,
    title = "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 LMA-Fastrach ™, rather than the air-Q ™ ILA.",
    keywords = "Blind tracheal intubation, Intubating laryngeal mask airway, Supraglottic airway, The air-Q intubating laryngeal airway, The LMA-fastrach",
    author = "Neoh, {E. U.} and Choy, {Choy Yin}",
    year = "2012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "18",
    pages = "150--155",
    journal = "Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia",
    issn = "2220-1181",
    publisher = "In House Publications",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Comparison of the air-Q ILA ™ and the LMA-Fastrach ™ in airway management during general anaesthesia

    AU - Neoh, E. U.

    AU - Choy, Choy Yin

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - 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 LMA-Fastrach ™, rather than the air-Q ™ ILA.

    AB - 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 LMA-Fastrach ™, rather than the air-Q ™ ILA.

    KW - Blind tracheal intubation

    KW - Intubating laryngeal mask airway

    KW - Supraglottic airway

    KW - The air-Q intubating laryngeal airway

    KW - The LMA-fastrach

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862688654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862688654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:84862688654

    VL - 18

    SP - 150

    EP - 155

    JO - Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia

    JF - Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia

    SN - 2220-1181

    IS - 3

    ER -