| Part OneA clinical evaluation of the Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation in childrenObjective To observe the clinical efficacy of Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation in children.Methods Eighty healthy children scheduled for elective auricular reconstruction surgery requiring general endotracheal anesthesia were enrolled in this prospective study, each patient received either a size 2or 2.5 Air-Q according to their weight. The number of attempts for successful insertion,leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of view,number of attempts and time for tracheal intubation, time for Air-Q removal, and complications were recorded.Results Air-Q placement were successful in all patients, all 73 cases (91.2%)were inserted in the first time and the average insertion time of Air-Q was13.7±6.9s, All 79 cases were intubated via FOB in the first attempt successfully, except one failure requiring a second attempt, the first time success rate was 98.7% and the average time of intubation via FOB was 40.1±10.3s, there were no significant hemodynamic changes and postoperative complicationsConclusion The Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway was easy to place and provided effective conduit for tracheal intubation with cuffed tracheal tubes in children with normal airways. Additionally.removal of the Air-Q can be achieved quickly without dislodgement of the tracheal tube, causing slight hemodynamic effects, providing a new choice for airway management of children.Part two:A randomized trial comparing the Ambu(?) Aura-iTM with the Air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation in childrenObjective:To compare the Aura-i with the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation.Methods:One hundred twenty children, scheduled for elective auricular reconstruction surgery requiring general endotracheal anesthesia were enrolled in this prospective study, they were randomized to receive either the Air-Q orAura-i and divided into two equal subgroups (Group Air-Q and Aura-i). The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, cuff pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts, time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed.Results:Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients.The time for devic placement was longer in the Air-Q than the Aura-i (14.1±7.2 s VS 10.8 ±5.2s) so as to the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Air-Q (39.8 ± 9.5 s) and the Aura-i (24.1 ± 8.2 s P< 0.05), and the time for removal between the two devices Air-Q (18.2±5.1s)and the Aura-i (14.7±3.7 s P<0.05);There were no differences in fiberoptic grade of view between devices and the percentage of glottis seen was 80.0%(Air-Q)vs 86.7%(Aura-i). There were statistically significant differences in the leak pressures and cuff pressure,20.5±4.8 cm H20 and 22.2±5.0 cm H2O(P< 0.05),22.9+11.5 cm H2Oå'Œ33.9+15.9 cm H2O (P< 0.05). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic changes and postoperative complicationsConclusions:Both devices served as effective conduits for fi beroptic-guided tracheal intubation have ease operation,higher successful rate and fewer complications, espesically the Aura-i. |
PDF Full Text Request