Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 330
Ahead of Print

Comparison of Airtraq™ versus C-MAC® videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in children with normal airways

 Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Barkha Agrawal,
Dept. of Paediatric Anaesthesia, 3rd Floor, Old Building, Besides Ward 3, KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400012, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_2_20

Background and Aims: When compared with direct laryngoscopes, videolaryngoscopes can provide a significantly better view of the larynx. There are no studies in children directly comparing Airtraq and C-MAC® videolaryngoscopes. We aimed to compare intubating characteristics between these two devices in pediatric patients. The primary outcome measure was the time needed for successful intubation and secondary outcome measures were the number of attempts to intubate, ease of intubation, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, optimization maneuvers and complications such as airway trauma and esophageal intubation. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twelve children aged 1–12 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia are quiring tracheal intubation were enrolled. Children were randomized into two groups using computer generated randomization sequence. The t-test was used for analyzing quantitative data, nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results: Time to tracheal intubation was significantly longer with Airtraq (41.0 s) compared to C-MAC® (23.4 s); P < 0.001. The number of attempts at tracheal intubation was more with Airtraq (P = 0.008). Seventy-five percent of anesthesiologists found C-MAC® easy to use. POGO score was >90% in both groups without maneuvers. Conclusion: The study found that in pediatric patients with normal airways, time to intubation was faster with C-MAC® as compared to AirtraqTM. C-MAC® also performed better in aspects like the number of attempts and ease of intubation.

Print this article
  Search Pubmed for
    -  Agrawal B
    -  Dave N
    -  Dias R
    -  Kulkarni K
    -  Shah H
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded4    

Recommend this journal