A study to evaluate and compare intubating laryngeal mask airway and air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for intubation using Parker Flex Tip tube.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Though manufacturer recommendations suggest use of specific endotracheal tube (ETT) with intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA), Parker Flex Tip tube introduced by J D Parker has certain advantages and is also cost-effective. This study was conducted to compare ILMA and air-Q ILA for intubation using Parker Flex Tip tube.

METHODS

Patients of either gender, aged 18-60 years, scheduled for elective surgery requiring endotracheal intubation were included in this study. In group A ( = 55), blind intubation was done through ILMA using Parker Flex Tip tube and in group B ( = 55), blind intubation was done through air-Q ILA using Parker Flex Tip tube. Success rate, number of attempts, ease and a total time of intubation were recorded.

RESULTS

Intubation was successful in 54 patients (98.2%) in group A and in 46 patients (85.2%) in group B ( = 0.026). Intubation was significantly easy with ILMA ( = 0.048). Manoeuvres for intubation were used in 10.9% patients in group A while it was used in 27.8% patients in group B. Significantly, more manoeuvres were required with air-Q ILA for intubation ( = 0.026). Number of attempts for ETT placement ( = 0.092), insertion time of ETT (T) ( = 0.472) and total time taken for successful intubation ( = 0.526) were comparable in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

The intubating laryngeal mask airway was superior to the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for blind intubation using Parker Flex Tip tube.