Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 April;84(4) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 April;84(4):455-62



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 April;84(4):455-62

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11702-5


language: English

Airway management with Fastrach laryngeal mask versus Spritztube: a prospective randomized manikin-based study

Silvia DE ROSA 1, 2 , Fiorenza FERRARI 1, Stefano CARBONI CHECCACCI 1, Alessandro RIGOBELLO 1, Paolo GENNARO 1, Daniele DE LUCA 2, 3, Mirco PRIMADEI 1, Federico POLITI 1, Adriano PELLIZZARI 1, Raffaele BONATO 1

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Sacro Cuore Catholic University, Rome, Italy; 3 Division of Pediatrics and Neonatal Critical Care, Paris-Sud University Hospitals, A. Beclere Medical Center, Paris, Italy


BACKGROUND: A new promising device, the Spritztube (ST), was developed combining the ability to perform both supraglottic ventilation and orotracheal fibreoptic intubation using the same device, allowing an easy passage from supraglottic ventilation to tracheal ventilation avoiding apnea. The present study aims to compare the speed and the subjective ease of insertion of the novel tracheal tube (Spritztube®) compared to the intubating laryngeal mask airway Fastrach™ (FT-LMA) in a simulation environment.
METHODS: Each participant received verbal instruction and practical demonstration concerning “technique of insertion” for both devices on manikin and, in a randomized order, used both devices. Time of placement (T1), time of inflation (T2), the elapsed procedural time (T3), ease of insertion, time of exchange maneuver for intubation (T4), success rates and number of attempts were recorded for each EAD.
RESULTS: Forty-seven participants were enrolled. The ST was judged as easier insertion than FT-LMA (P<0.001) having also a significant higher success rate than FT-LMA (P<0.001). Number of attempts for insertion was similar. Number of attempts for exchange to ETI was significantly more for FT-LMA (P<0.001). FT-LMA was applied 11 s faster than the ST (median T3 Fastrach: 13 s, ST: 24 s, P<0.001) as the exchange maneuver for ETI (median T4 FT-LMA: 13 s, ST: 24 s, P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In a manikin simulation setting, insertion and intubation with and ST was performed 11 s slower than with use of a FT-LMA.

KEY WORDS: Airway management - Clinical competence - Intubation - Manikins - Medical education - Simulation training

top of page