Comparison of face-to-face tracheal intubation and conventional head-end tracheal intubation using Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope in adults - A randomised study

• Main Authors: Swati Bharti (Author), Sujata Chaudhary (Author), Rashmi Salhotra (Author), Seema Meena (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2023-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 0970-9185; 10.4103/joacp.joacp_161_22
• Keywords: airtraq; airway; face-to-face; intubation; oro-tracheal intubation; video-laryngoscope; Anesthesiology; RD78.3-87.3; Pharmacy and materia medica; RS1-441
• Source: Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, Vol 39, Iss 4, Pp 609-614 (2023)

Background and Aims: Tracheal intubation can be difficult in certain scenarios where the head-end of the patient is not accessible as in entrapped casualties. A face-to-face technique using a video-laryngoscope can prove to be useful in such scenarios. However, the two positions of tracheal intubation namely, face-to-face and head-end, using video-laryngoscope have never been compared in patients. Material and Methods: Fifty patients of either sex, between 18 and 60 years, ASA class I/II, MPC I/II, scheduled to undergo surgical operations requiring general anesthesia with tracheal intubation were randomly allocated to either Group F (face-to-face intubation) or Group H (head-end intubation). Intubation was performed using Airtraq™ video-laryngoscope in both groups. Time taken for successful intubation, device insertion time, glottic view as per Cormack and Lehane (CL) grade, ease, attempts, the incidence of failed intubation, and hemodynamic parameters were noted. Results: The time taken for successful intubation in Group F was significantly longer than in Group H (38.09 ± 19.45 s vs. 19.32 ± 9.86 s, respectively; P < 0.001). Three cases of failed intubation were noted in Group F compared to none in Group H (P = 0.235). Glottic view, ease, attempts, and hemodynamic parameters were comparable among the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The time taken for successful tracheal intubation was longer in face-to-face technique than in head-end technique in patients with the normal airway. However, both techniques were similar in terms of glottic view, ease of intubation and number of intubation attempts, the incidence of failed intubation, and hemodynamic changes. Therefore, face-to-face tracheal intubation is a good alternative to secure the airway when the head-end is not accessible.