• Users Online: 593
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 65  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 133-138

Comparison of aerosol box intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy—A randomised controlled trial


Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Sundeep Vijayaraghavan
Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala – 682041
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_1218_20

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious disease and healthcare workers are at constant risk for contracting it. Nowadays, aerosol box is used in conjunction with WHO-recommended safety kits, to avoid health workers from getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during aerosol-generating procedures. In our study, we compared the ease of oral intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy, when the aerosol box was used. The secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of airway loss, haemodynamic changes, number of attempts, and time required for intubation between these two techniques. Methods: This prospective randomised controlled study was conducted on 60 non-coronavirus disease (COVID) patients presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups:C and D using a computer-generated random sequence of numbers by closed envelope technique. In group D, laryngoscopy was performed with Macintosh blade and in group C, with Storz® C-MAC video laryngoscope. Results: The ease of intubation was better (grade 1) in group C than D (68.6% vs. 31.4% respectively) with a P value of < 0.001. 10% of patients required more than one intubation attempt in group D compared to none in group C, but this difference was not statistically significant. The intubation time was comparable between the two groups. There were no incidences of loss of airway or failure to intubate in both groups. Conclusion: The use of C-MAC video-laryngoscopy resulted in easier orotracheal intubation as compared to intubation with direct laryngoscopy when the aerosol box was used.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed453    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded83    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal