IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0171889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for difficult paediatric intubation: A manikin study

Author

Listed:
  • Gen Owada
  • Takahiro Mihara
  • Gaku Inagawa
  • Ayako Asakura
  • Takahisa Goto
  • Koui Ka

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of devices for difficult intubation in paediatric patients, especially with a Cormack-Lehane grade 4 view, has yet to be established. We compared intubating parameters among three devices (the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes). Methods: This study is a randomised cross-over trial. Participants were 20 anaesthetists. Each device was tested three times using a paediatric manikin with a Cormack-Lehane grade 4 view. The order to use each device was randomised by a computer-generated random sequence. The primary endpoint was the rate of successful intubation. Secondary endpoints included the time taken to intubate, percentage of glottic opening score, and severity of potential dental trauma. Results: The successful intubation rates of the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes were 100%, 72%, and 45%, respectively. The risk ratio of the success rates of Airtraq® compared with McGrath® and Macintosh laryngoscopes were 1.40 (95% CI; 1.19–1.64, P

Suggested Citation

  • Gen Owada & Takahiro Mihara & Gaku Inagawa & Ayako Asakura & Takahisa Goto & Koui Ka, 2017. "A comparison of the Airtraq®, McGrath®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for difficult paediatric intubation: A manikin study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-7, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171889
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171889
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171889&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0171889?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171889. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.