Comparison of intubation in a box which can contain the aerosol using video laryngoscope versus conventional laryngoscope and conventional laryngoscope
Phase 3
Completed
- Conditions
- Health Condition 1: R688- Other general symptoms and signs
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2020/07/026663
- Lead Sponsor
- Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Completed
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 60
Inclusion Criteria
ASA 1 & 2 patients of age group18-60 years presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation will be included in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients with a difficult airway, obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, valvular heart diseases, pregnancy, raised intracranial and intraocular pressures will be excluded from the study.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method The primary objective of the study is to compare the ease of oral intubation with Câ??MAC video laryngoscope and by direct laryngoscopy, when aerosol box is usedTimepoint: Up to 15 minutes after intubation
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Comparison of the incidence of airway loss, hemodynamic changes, number of attempts and time required for intubationTimepoint: Up to 15 minutes after intubation