Department of Anesthesiology, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.
Med Gas Res. 2023 Jan-Mar;13(1):10-14. doi: 10.4103/2045-9912.350920.
The intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) can be used for ventilation and oxygenation between intubation attempts, but there is a varied success rate ranging from 33% to 96%. Air Q is a relatively new entrant. Parker flex tube aids in atraumatic intubation. The primary aim of this study was to compare Air Q intubating laryngeal airway with ILMA as intubation conduits in patients with simulated fixed cervical spine using a Parker flex tube. It was a single-blinded, randomized, prospective, and comparative study conducted on 91 patients aged between 18 to 60 years of either sex, scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II. Out of 45 patients in each group, Air Q was successfully placed in 43 patients and ILMA was successfully placed in 44 patients. 35.56% of the patients required maneuvers for placing the Air Q, whereas, for placing the ILMA, only 15.56% of the patients required maneuvers. Intubation through the AIR Q was successful in 39 patients and through the ILMA in 44 patients, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. The number of attempts and the time of device insertion were comparable. There were a similar number of attempts, maneuvers required, and time is taken for endotracheal intubation. The incidence of cough and sore throat was comparable in both groups. We conclude that ILMA has a higher success rate than Air Q for tracheal intubation with Parker Flex tube in patients with simulated fixed cervical spine. More optimized maneuvers were required for the placement of Air Q.
插管型喉罩气道（ILMA）可在插管尝试之间用于通气和氧合，但成功率从 33%到 96%不等。Air Q 是一种相对较新的产品。Parker 弹性管有助于进行无创伤性插管。本研究的主要目的是使用 Parker 弹性管比较 Air Q 插管型喉罩气道与 ILMA 作为模拟固定颈椎患者的插管导管。这是一项单盲、随机、前瞻性和对照研究，共纳入 91 名年龄在 18 至 60 岁之间的男女患者，ASA 身体状况 I 和 II 级，计划在全身麻醉下接受择期手术。在每组 45 名患者中，Air Q 成功放置在 43 名患者中，ILMA 成功放置在 44 名患者中。需要进行 35.56%的操作才能放置 Air Q，而放置 ILMA 时，只有 15.56%的患者需要进行操作。通过 AIR Q 进行插管成功的有 39 例，通过 ILMA 成功的有 44 例，但两组之间无显著差异。插管次数和器械插入时间相当。插管尝试次数、所需操作和插入时间相当。两组的咳嗽和喉咙痛发生率相似。我们得出结论，在模拟固定颈椎的患者中，与 Air Q 相比，ILMA 用 Parker Flex 管进行气管插管的成功率更高。放置 Air Q 需要更优化的操作。
