The Efficiency of Different Oropharyngeal Airways as a Conduit for Fiberoptic Intubation. Comparative Study
NCT ID: NCT03173651
Last Updated: 2017-06-02
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
NA
60 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2016-06-30
2017-05-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison of Effectiveness of Different Airway Management Methods During Percutaneous Tracheostomy
NCT04872881
Endotracheal Tube Threading Over the Fiberoptic Bronchoscope
NCT03639688
Low-Cost Model Versus Airway Part-Task Trainer for Flexible Bronchoscope-Guided Tracheal Intubation Training
NCT06959953
Insertion Time Over Fiberoptic Bronchoscope of Double Lumen Tube and Single Lumen Tube
NCT03173443
Comparison of Endotracheal Intubation Using Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy Versus Flexible Intubation Video Endoscope (FIVE) in Obese Patients Undergoing Elective Surgeries Under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT03423563
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
DEVICE_FEASIBILITY
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
Modified Williams airway
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
Modified Guedle's airway
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
LMA MADgic airway
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
Modified Guedle's airway
This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group G
LMA MADgic airway
This airway used as a conduit for fiberoptic bronchoscopic tracheal intubation in Group M
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Kasr El Aini Hospital
OTHER
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
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.
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.