This study compared Air-Q and Intubating LMA when used as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.
Methods
One hundred patients scheduled for surgical operations under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two equal groups ( = 50). Group I: Air-Q and group II: Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) in both groups intubation was done by Fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) through study device. After induction of anesthesia, patients were ventilated with Air-Q or ILMA. Then, endotracheal tube (ETT) was inserted through study device. Recorded measurements were as follows: number of attempts and duration of insertion of device, peak airway pressure and fiberoptic grading of laryngeal view. Also, we recorded number of attempts and duration of insertion of ETT and the incidence of blood stain on device and sore throat grading.
Results
Duration of insertion of Air-Q was 13.300 ± 3.471 s, whilst that of ILMA was 19.640 ± 4.737 s ( < 0.001). In group I, peak airway pressure was 26.400 ± 2.176 cmHO, whilst, in group II, it was 25.260 ± 1.468 cmHO ( < 0.01). Full view of vocal cords amounted to 78% and 26% of Groups I and II patients, respectively (  0.001). Time of insertion of ETT was 33.5 ± 6.795 s in group I, whilst in group II, it was 39.5 ± 6.566 s ( < 0.001). Blood stain was found on supraglottic device in 46% and 22% of cases in Groups I and II, respectively ( < 0.01).
Conclusion
Air-Q proved to be an excellent conduit for endotracheal intubation compared to the ILMA.