European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Background: The most common route for tracheal intubation is orotracheal where an endotracheal tube is passed from oropharynx to trachea. Anatomical and physiological characteristics of the patient make intubation sometimes difficult. Video laryngoscope has more ease of intubation compared to direct laryngoscopy for both experienced and inexperienced person.
Objective: The present study was done to compare direct laryngoscopy with Airtraq videolaryngoscope in non-difficult airway for ease of intubation and study hemodynamic changes.
Materials and Method: Study was conducted on 60 patients presented for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were divided into 2 groups-V & D. In group D, direct laryngoscopy was performed with macintosh blade and in group V, videolaryngoscopy was performed with Airtraq video laryngoscope.
The number of attempts required, failure to intubate and time for intubation were noted. Any loss of airway, orodental injury to patient, cough response during intubation were noted.
The HR, SpO2, SBP and DBP were noted at induction (baseline), 1, 3, 5 and 15 min after intubation.
Result: Number of attempt require to intubate patient in both group-not significant. Average time for intubate patients with group V -23.1 second, compared to group D-20. 1 second, that was significant. It was longer in Group V. Heart rate-significantly increase at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min and 10 min in Group D patients .Systolic BP and Diastolic BP- Significantly increase at 1 min and 3 min seen in group D and receded to baseline value at 5min and thereafter. No significant difference seen in Spo2 in both group.
Conclusion: In our study, Airtraq video laryngoscope resulted in significantly lesser hemodynamic response compared to direct laryngoscope. Little more intubation time required in videolaryngoscope compared to direct laryngoscope but that didn’t affect much. Videolaryngoscope gained popularity as an intubation device in the hands of both airway experts and non-experts.