Comparison of the Success Rate of Intubation Between the LMA Fastrach andAirQ-ILA Methods in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery During GeneralAnaesthesia

[Background]Rapid placement of a reliable airway is the most important task in anesthesia practice.Airway management is a critical skill to provide safe anesthesia since morbidity. Inaddition, mortality due to anesthesia could be linked to difficulty or failure in airwaymanagement. In this study, intubation success was compared between two methods, AirQ-ILAand LMAfastrach, among candidates for elective surgery under general anesthesia.[Methods]In this clinical trial, patients, who were candidates for elective surgery undergeneral anesthesia at Firoozgar and Rasoul Akram Hospitals, were randomly divided intoLMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA groups. Heart rate before and after induction and intubation,diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, duration of device insertion,intubation time, number of attempts until successful device insertion and tracheaintubation, and success or failure in the insertion of the device and the tube wererecorded; as for statistical analysis, SPSS version 21 was considered.[Results]In comparison with the LMAfastrach group, the device insertion time and intubation timewere significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group (P < 0.05). However, the groupsshowed no significant difference regarding the number of device and tube insertionattempts (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the successof device insertion and intubation in either LMAfastrach or AirQ-ILA group (P >0.05).[Conclusions]The LMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA methods were not significantly different regarding thesuccess of airway instrument application and intubation, while the device insertion timeand intubation time were significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group in comparison withthe LMAfastrach group.