The Efficiency of Different Oropharyngeal Airways as a Conduit for Fiberoptic Intubation. Comparative Study

NCT ID: NCT03173651

Last Updated: 2017-06-02

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

60 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-06-30

Study Completion Date

2017-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

60 Patients were randomly allocated into three equal groups, after induction of general anesthesia one of the three airways included in the study (Modified Williams, Modified Gudle's and LMA MADgic airway) was used as a conduit for endotracheal tube placement using fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Airway insertion time, ease of insertion, adaptation to oral cavity and intubation time was recorded.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The study was conducted in Kasr Alainy hospital, faculty of medicine, Cairo University.

After approval of ethical committee and informed written consent from each patient, 60 patient aging above 18 years, ASA I-II , with Ganzouri airway score \<4 and undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia were included in the study.

Patients were randomly allocated into three equal groups:

Group M (GM) (n=20 patients): patient was intubated using LMA MADgic airway. Group W (GW) (n=20 patients): patient was intubated using modified Williams airway.

Group G (GG) (n=20 patients): patient was intubated using modified Guedel's airway.

Randomization was performed by random computer allocation with numbered closed opaque envelopes.

The study was performed by expert anesthesiologist in FOB intubation. In the preparation room, all patients was cannulated with a 20 gauge venous cannula and 0.02mg/kg Midazolam was given. Patient transferred to the operating room and was monitored with non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry and ECG. After preoxygenation using a facemask for 5 min, induction of anesthesia was done with 2mg/kg propofol, 1 μg/kg of fentanyl and 0.6 mg/kg of atracurium.

After loss of consciousness the selected airway according to group randomization was inserted into the mouth (size selection and technique of insertion according to manufacturer instruction). Time of insertion defined as the time, in seconds, from touching the patients' mouth with the airway until capnographic confirmation of ventilation by facemask. The ease of insertion was determined by number of attempts of airway insertion. Adaptation of the airway was determined by adequacy of ventilation, fitness to the oral cavity and appearance of successive ETco2 waves.

Manual positive-pressure ventilation was then started with 100% oxygen and 1-1.5% isoflurane through the facemask for 3 min until complete muscle relaxation was confirmed (when train-of-four count becomes zero).

Loaded FOB was inserted for intubation through the airway, laryngeal view grade was recorded (LVG) using Brimacomb and Berry scale; thereafter, the fiberscope was advanced into the trachea to a level just above the carina and the tracheal tube was railroaded over it.

Tracheal intubation could be facilitated by tube rotation, jaw thrust, neck extension or flexion and adjustment of the airway was allawed and was recorded. The intubation time was recorded ; that is, the time from cessation of manual ventilation using a facemask until restarting of ventilation through the tracheal tube.

The airway was removed except the LMA MADgic airway which was removed before ETT insertion. The ease of airway removal was evaluated by the anesthesiologist.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Fiberoptic Tracheal Intubation

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

CROSSOVER

prospective randomized trial
Primary Study Purpose

DEVICE_FEASIBILITY

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Group W

This group was intubated by Fiberoptic bronchoscope assisted by Modified Williams airway as a conduit

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Modified Williams airway

Intervention Type DEVICE

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group W

Group G

This group was intubated by Fiberoptic bronchoscope assisted by Modified Guedle's airway as a conduit

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Modified Guedle's airway

Intervention Type DEVICE

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group G

Group M

This group was intubated by Fiberoptic bronchoscope assisted by LMA MADgic airway as a conduit

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

LMA MADgic airway

Intervention Type DEVICE

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group M

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Modified Williams airway

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group W

Intervention Type DEVICE

Modified Guedle's airway

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group G

Intervention Type DEVICE

LMA MADgic airway

This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group M

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Fikrey airway

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* ASA physical state I-II Ganzouri airway score less than 4

Exclusion Criteria

* ASA physical state III-IV. Patients with Ganzouri airway score more than 4. Patients with risk of aspiration of gastric content. Any anatomical abnormalities or iatrogenic injuries that invalidate Ganzouri airway score.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Kasr El Aini Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Sara Ahmed Abdallah

Assistant lecturer of anesthesia

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Sara Ahmed Abdallah, Master

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Kasr El Aini Hospital

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Dina N. Abbas, Ekramey M. Abdghaffar. Comparison of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway versus the modified Williams intubating airway as aids for training in fiberoptic tracheal intubation. Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology 2013, 6:134-139.

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

N-40-2016

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.