Intubation using laryngeal mask airway CTrach and laryngeal mask airway Fastrach in anesthetized non-paralyzed patients: a randomized controlled study

Background Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) CTrach has an integrated fiber optic bundle and battery-powered monitor that enable viewing the larynx. The LMA CTrach is a step in the evolution of LMA Fastrach. This study assessed the feasibility of the two types of LMA in anesthetized non-paralyzed patients...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Ain-Shams journal of anesthesiology Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 1 - 6
Main Authors:	Abdel Dayem, Ola T., Farahat, Tamer M.
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 08-05-2019 SpringerOpen
Subjects:	Critical Care Medicine Endotracheal intubation Intensive LMA CTrach LMA Fastrach Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Article Surgery LMA CTrach LMA Fastrach Endotracheal intubation
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Background Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) CTrach has an integrated fiber optic bundle and battery-powered monitor that enable viewing the larynx. The LMA CTrach is a step in the evolution of LMA Fastrach. This study assessed the feasibility of the two types of LMA in anesthetized non-paralyzed patients. Patients and methods This is a randomized controlled study where patients were allocated into two equal groups ( n = 40 each), LMA CTrach group and LMA Fastrach group. All patients were scheduled for elective surgeries requiring intubation. General anesthesia with sevoflurane was used without the use of a neuromuscular blocking agent. The success of intubation from the first attempt and overall success rate were recorded. Also, the time to achieve ventilation, the time for complete tracheal intubation, and the time of the whole procedure were recorded, and any side effects were noticed. Results Tracheal intubation was successful on the first attempt in 92.5% in the LMA CTrach group and in 67.5% in the LMA Fastrach group. The success rate within three attempts was 100% in the LMA CTrach group and 95% in the LMA Fastrach group. The time for tracheal intubation and the time of the whole procedure are significantly longer with the LMA CTrach group than the LMA Fastrach group ( P < 0.002). Conclusion LMA CTrach produced a high first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation; meanwhile, the time for intubation and the whole procedure times were longer. Complications of both groups were minimal.
ISSN:	2090-925X 2090-925X
DOI:	10.1186/s42077-019-0029-7