The intubating laryngeal mask airway compared with direct laryngoscopy

We have compared the ability of naïve intubators to intubate the trachea using a laryngoscope and an intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) after receiving basic training, in a randomized, prospective, crossover study in 60 patients. Ventilation of the lungs via the ILMA was also compared with ventilation with a face mask. There was no significant difference in successful intubation between the techniques (38 of 89 with the ILMA and 33 of 93 with direct laryngoscopy; ns). In patients in whom participants failed in their intubation attempts with the ILMA, investigators achieved success in 89% (16 of 18). Satisfactory ventilation was more common with the ILMA (50 of 51) than with the face mask (43 of 60) (P = 0.0001). A total of 98% (89 of 91) of ILMA were inserted successfully, with a mean insertion time of 19.6 s, and 78% (69/89) of these insertions were achieved in less than 26 s. The ILMA may be useful for emergency oxygenation and ventilation, but these results do not support its use for intubation by those not trained in advanced airway management and ILMA use.