TRACHEAL INTUBATION DURING MANUAL INLINE STABILISATION: COMPARISON OF INTUBATING LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY™ VERSUS TRACHLIGHT®

Abstract

Introduction: Airway management with unstable cervical spine is a major challenge to anesthetist. Conventional direct laryngoscopy causes substantial movement of cervical spine and can cause neurological decit. Newer devices like Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway(ILMA) and Trachlight avoid cervical spine movement. To compare rate of successful tracheal Aim: intubation with Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway™ with Trachlight® in anaesthetised and paralysed adults with manual in line stabilization Method and Materials: 50 patients were included in the study and allocated in two groups. In the ILMA group ,patients were ventilated and then intubated through the ILma. IN the Trachlight group, patients were intubated using trachlight. Success rate , time taken for intubation and post operative sore throat and hoarseness of voice were compared between the two groups. Results: In the ILMA group,21 patients could be adequately ventilated in the rst attempt and 4 in second attempt. 12 patients could be successfully intubated. 9 patients could be intubated in the rst attempt and 3 patients in second attempt. In the Trachlight , 24 patients could be intubated in the rst attempt and one patient in second attempt. Intubation time was 14.08 ± 2.23 seconds in the ILMA group whereas in Trachlight group it was 26.48 ± 9.13 seconds(p value of <0.0001) In healthy anaesthetized,paralysed adults with manual in line stabiliz Conclusion: ation Trachlight assistance at tracheal intubation provides high rst attempt success.ILMA is an effective ventilation device, but an unacceptably high failure rate at blind tracheal intubation.