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

Abstract

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 (n = 55), blind intubation was done through ILMA using Parker Flex Tip tube and in group B (n = 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 (P = 0.026). Intubation was significantly easy with ILMA (P = 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 (P = 0.026). Number of attempts for ETT placement (P = 0.092), insertion time of ETT (TT) (P = 0.472) and total time taken for successful intubation (P = 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.