Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 Dicembre;79(12) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 Dicembre;79(12):1366-70



Rivista di Anestesia, Rianimazione, Terapia Antalgica e Terapia Intensiva

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Periodicità: Mensile

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596


Minerva Anestesiologica 2013 Dicembre;79(12):1366-70


A comparative study of the efficacy of Pediatric Airtraq® with conventional laryngoscope in children

Ali Q. E., Amir S. H., Firdaus U., Siddiqui O. A., Azhar A. Z.

Department of Anesthesiology, Jawahaharlal Nehru Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh, U.P., India

Background: Management of pediatric airway may pose a challenge to anesthesiologists. Many modifications in maneuvers and equipments have been made overtime to overcome the problem. Pediatric optical laryngoscope (Airtraq®) is one of the newer equipments for managing simple and difficult pediatric airway. Here we have evaluated the comparative efficacy of pediatric Airtraq® optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscope in children scheduled for routine surgeries.
Methods: After written informed consent from the parents/guardian of the children, they were allocated into two groups of 17 patients each using the pediatric Airtraq® in one and a conventional laryngoscope in the other. Airtraq® intubation patients were those in which pediatric Airtraq® was used to intubate whereas the patients who were intubated with conventional laryngoscope were labelled as conventional intubation group. The primary outcome measure was time needed for successful intubation whereas secondary outcome measures were number of attempts to intubate, POGO (percentage of glottic opening) scoring and complications like airway trauma and esophageal intubation.
Results: It took significantly shorter time to intubate in Airtraq® intubation group of patients as compared to Conventional intubation group of patients (P<0.05). Similarly the POGO scoring was significantly better in Airtraq intubation compared to Conventional intubation (P <0.001). Number of attempts to intubate and complications like airway trauma and esophageal intubation using Airtraq® was less frequent compared to conventional laryngoscopy but the difference was statistically insignificant.
Conclusion: Pediatric Airtraq® provides better intubating conditions in children compared to conventional laryngoscope with less frequent complications.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina