Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026
The Flexible Rhino-Laryngoscope for Awake Nasotracheal Intubation
Published on: August 2, 2024
A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants
M C White1, C J Marsh, R M Beringer
1Department of Anaesthetics, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK. mcwdoc@doctors.org.uk
Insights
The Airtraq optical laryngoscope showed improved laryngeal visualization in infants but took longer for tracheal intubation in children compared to conventional methods.
Area of Science:
- Anesthesiology
- Pediatric Medicine
- Medical Devices
Background:
- The Airtraq optical laryngoscope is a newer device for airway management.
- Paediatric sizes became available in the UK in 2008.
- Conventional laryngoscopy is the standard method for tracheal intubation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of the Airtraq optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in children.
- To evaluate intubation time and laryngeal view in paediatric patients.
Main Methods:
- A randomised, controlled trial was conducted.
- Sixty paediatric patients (20 infants, 40 children) were recruited.
- Intubation time and laryngeal view (percentage of glottic opening, visual analogue scores) were measured.
Main Results:
- Overall intubation time was longer with the Airtraq (47.3s) than conventional laryngoscopy (26.3s) (p=0.002).
- This difference was significant in children (p=0.003) but not infants (p=0.29).
- The Airtraq provided a significantly better laryngeal view in infants (p=0.001) but a similar view in children (p>0.05).
Conclusions:
- The Airtraq optical laryngoscope offers improved laryngeal visualization in infants.
- Conventional laryngoscopy remains faster for tracheal intubation in children.
- Further research may be needed to optimize Airtraq use in paediatric anaesthesia.
Abstract:
The Airtraq(™) optical laryngoscope became available in paediatric sizes in the UK in May 2008. We conducted a randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq with conventional laryngoscopy during routine anaesthesia in children. We hypothesised that the Airtraq laryngoscope would perform as well as conventional laryngoscopy. Sixty patients (20 infants and 40 children) were recruited. The mean (SD) intubation time using the Airtraq was longer than conventional laryngoscopy overall (47.3 (32.6) vs 26.3 (11.5) s; p=0.002), though the difference was only significant for children (p=0.003) and not for infants (p=0.29). The Airtraq provided a better view of the larynx compared with conventional laryngoscopy (in infants (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (95-100 [90-100]) vs 77 (50-90 [40-100]), respectively; p=0.001; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (9.2-9.5 [8.2-10.0]) vs 6.8 (5.1-8.0 [4.7-10.0]), respectively; p=0.001). In children, the Airtraq provided a similar view of the larynx (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (100-100 [40-100]) vs 100 (90-100 [50-100]), respectively; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [7.0-10.0]) vs 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [5.6-10.0]), respectively; both p>0.05), compared with conventional laryngoscopy.
