Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology (Jan 2017)

A comparative study of McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation

  • Nadeem Raza,
  • Muazzam Hasan,
  • Syed Moeid Ahmed,
  • Shahjahan Bano,
  • Manazir Athar

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_370_15
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 33, no. 2
pp. 221 – 225

Abstract

Read online

Background and Aims: Many cases of difficult tracheal intubation remain unrecognized until after induction of anesthesia. McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes are among the novel laryngoscopes that have an advantage over the conventional laryngoscopes in case of unanticipated difficult airway. Thus, we did a comparative study between McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes to evaluate their efficacy in routine anesthesia practice. Material and Methods: Sixty anesthetized patients were divided into two groups using computer-based randomization, and tracheal intubation was performed using either McGrath or Airtraq laryngoscope. The primary outcome measures were duration and incidence of successful tracheal intubation. Hemodynamic response, glottic view (percentage of glottic opening score [POGO]), ease of intubation, and airway complications were also measured. Results: Both McGrath and Airtraq groups were comparable in terms of incidence of successful tracheal intubation (93.3% vs. 96.6%), ease of intubation (70% vs. 77%), and POGO scoring. Intubation time was significantly shorter with Airtraq (13.5 vs. 17.8 s; P < 0.001). There were statistically significant changes in the heart rate and blood pressure after tracheal intubation in both the groups (P < 0.001); however, these parameters reached baseline within 5 min of intubation in both the groups. The incidence of injury was 10% with McGrath videolaryngoscope and 13.3% with Airtraq and was comparable. Conclusion: Both Airtraq and McGrath videolaryngoscope have high success rates of intubation. Airtraq is better than McGrath laryngoscope due to shorter tracheal intubation time.

Keywords