Endotracheal intubation with airtraq® versus storz® videolaryngoscope in children younger than two years - a randomized pilot-study

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endotracheal intubation with airtraq® versus storz® videolaryngoscope in children younger than two years - a randomized pilot-study

AU - Sørensen, Martin Kryspin

AU - Holm-Knudsen, Rolf

PY - 2012/4/30

Y1 - 2012/4/30

N2 - Background: New laryngoscopes have become available for use in small children. The aim of the study was to compare the Storz® videolaryngoscope (SVL) to the Airtraq® Optical laryngoscope (AOL) for tracheal intubation in children younger than two years of age who had a normal airway assessment. Our hypothesis was that the SVL would have a better success rate than the AOL.Methods: Ten children aged 2 years or younger scheduled for elective cleft lip/palate surgery were included. The anesthesia was standardized and a Cormack-Lehane (CL)-score was obtained using a Macintosh laryngoscope. After randomization CL-score and endotracheal tube positioning in front of the glottis was performed with one device, followed by the same procedure and intubation with the other device. The video-feed was recorded along with real-time audio. The primary endpoint was the success rate, defined as intubation in first attempt. Secondary endpoints were the time from start of laryngoscopy to CL-score, tube positioning in front of the glottis, and intubation.Results: Two intubation attempts were needed in two of five patients randomized to the SVL. The difference in time (SVL vs. AOL) to CL-score was 4.5 sec (p = 0.0449). The difference in time (SVL vs. AOL) to tube positioning was 11.6 sec (p = 0.0015). Time to intubation was 29.0 sec for SVL and 15.8 sec for AOL.Conclusion: No difference in the success rate of endotracheal intubation could be established in this ten patient sample of children younger than two years with a normal airway assessment scheduled for elective cleft lip/palate surgery. However, the Airtraq® Optical videolaryngoscope showed a number of time related advantages over the Storz® videolaryngoscope. Because of the small sample size a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings. Both devices were considered safe in all intubations.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier NCT01090726.

AB - Background: New laryngoscopes have become available for use in small children. The aim of the study was to compare the Storz® videolaryngoscope (SVL) to the Airtraq® Optical laryngoscope (AOL) for tracheal intubation in children younger than two years of age who had a normal airway assessment. Our hypothesis was that the SVL would have a better success rate than the AOL.Methods: Ten children aged 2 years or younger scheduled for elective cleft lip/palate surgery were included. The anesthesia was standardized and a Cormack-Lehane (CL)-score was obtained using a Macintosh laryngoscope. After randomization CL-score and endotracheal tube positioning in front of the glottis was performed with one device, followed by the same procedure and intubation with the other device. The video-feed was recorded along with real-time audio. The primary endpoint was the success rate, defined as intubation in first attempt. Secondary endpoints were the time from start of laryngoscopy to CL-score, tube positioning in front of the glottis, and intubation.Results: Two intubation attempts were needed in two of five patients randomized to the SVL. The difference in time (SVL vs. AOL) to CL-score was 4.5 sec (p = 0.0449). The difference in time (SVL vs. AOL) to tube positioning was 11.6 sec (p = 0.0015). Time to intubation was 29.0 sec for SVL and 15.8 sec for AOL.Conclusion: No difference in the success rate of endotracheal intubation could be established in this ten patient sample of children younger than two years with a normal airway assessment scheduled for elective cleft lip/palate surgery. However, the Airtraq® Optical videolaryngoscope showed a number of time related advantages over the Storz® videolaryngoscope. Because of the small sample size a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings. Both devices were considered safe in all intubations.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier NCT01090726.

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2253-12-7

DO - 10.1186/1471-2253-12-7

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 22545575

SN - 1471-2253

VL - 12

SP - 7

JO - BMC Anesthesiology

JF - BMC Anesthesiology

IS - 1

ER -