A study to compare two different types of video laryngoscopes (Airtraq optical laryngoscope and McGrath video laryngoscope) for intubation in children

Not yet recruiting

• Conditions: Medical and Surgical,

• Registration Number: CTRI/2021/07/034829
• Lead Sponsor: Maulana Azad Medical College

Brief Summary

As anaesthesiologists we deal with airway every day and almost every case. Many cases of difficult tracheal intubation remain unrecognized until after induction of anaesthesia. Endotracheal intubation using direct laryngoscope is gold standard for securing a patient’s airway and is widely used. Video laryngoscopes ar relatively recent entrants in the field of laryngoscopes with the benefit of better glottic view.

The paediatric Airtraq  is a rigid optical laryngoscope which offers the advantage of better glottis display in neutral position. Designed to facilitate complete visualization of the airway throughout the process of intubation. The blade comprises of two channels, one channel acts as a conduit through which the tracheal tube is passed whilst the other contains a light source and a series of lenses and mirrors that reflect the image from the tip of the blade to the viewfinder at the proximal end of the scope. Image can be viewed through the viewfinder.

The McGrath video laryngoscope is a non- channeled video laryngoscope with a Macintosh type blade which provides a view of glottis on the monitor. It consists of three main parts: handle, camera stick and blade. A monitor is mounted on top of the handle allowing the operator to focus into the anatomical detail with clarity.

Here we aim to compare Airtraq with McGrath laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2021-07-17
• Last Update Posted: 2021-12-07

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Not Yet Recruiting
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 60

Inclusion Criteria

1.Children 2-8 yrs of age belonging to ASA I & II undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia 2.Modified Mallampati class I and II.

Exclusion Criteria

1.Inter-incisor gap ≤ 2.5cms 2.Hyper-reactive airway 3.Predicted difficult airway (orofacial deformities, oral cavity pathology, facial trauma, cervical spine pathology, suspected spine injury).

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Intubation Difficulty Score	At the time of insertion, 2,4, 6, 8, 10 minutes after insertion of airway device

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
1.Time to intubate	2.Hemodynamic Response

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Maulana Azad Medical College; 🇮🇳 Central, DELHI, India

Maulana Azad Medical College

🇮🇳Central, DELHI, India

Nity Naveenta Ekka

Principal investigator

9582290672

nitynaveentaekka@gmail.com