Ease of endotracheal intubation with the conventional polyvinyl chloride endotracheal tube versus wire-reinforced flexometallic tube through the intubating laryngeal mask airway: A comparative study.

UNLABELLED: Background The I-LMA ventilates while providing a port for blind insertion of an endotracheal tube. The ILMA Fastrach is used especially for intubating in a difficult airway scenario. Its accompanying endotracheal tube is not economical nor readily available. In comparison, two alternative endotracheal tubes - polyvinyl chloride and wire-reinforced tubes were used for tracheal intubation through the ILMA.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to compare the ease of intubation when using conventional PVC tubes versus the wire-reinforced flexometallic tubes with the ILMA-FastrachTM. The number of attempts, time taken and additional maneuvers were noted. Intra-operative hemodynamic changes, post-operative sore throat, bleeding and hoarseness of voice was recorded over a period of 24 hours.

METHODOLOGY: After informed consent, 60 ASA I-II patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia were allocated to undergo blind intubation with the PVC tube or the wire-reinforced flexometallic tube.

RESULTS: More attempts were required for successful intubation using the wire-reinforced tube than the PVC tube with 76.7% passing in the first attempt in the PVC, and 53.3% passing in the first attempt in the flexometallic group. (P = 0.4). Average time for intubation in the PVC group: 28.24 ± 7.22 seconds. Average time for intubation in the flexometallic tube: 45.8 ± 15.78 sec. Occurrence of post-operative sore throat was 13.3% in the PVC group and 26.6% in the flexometallic group, with minimal hoarseness of voice 3.3% in the PVC group and 10% in the flexometallic group. There was also a slightly higher hemodynamic response in those who were intubated with the flexometallic tube than a PVC tube.

CONCLUSION: Intubating via the ILMA-Fastrach with the PVC tube offered better intubating conditions with regards to lesser time taken, lesser attempts, less manipulation, and less hemodynamic variations as compared to the patients who were intubated using the wire-reinforced tube.