Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology & Reanimation

Comparison of the Macintosh and Airtraq Laryngoscopes in Endotracheal Intubation Success


Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye


Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi, Haydarpaşa Eğitim Hastanesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Servisi, İstanbul, Türkiye


Ardahan Asker Hastanesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Servisi, Ardahan, Türkiye

Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2015; 43: 181-187
DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2015.38278
Read: 369 Downloads: 150 Published: 28 September 2019

Objective: Endotracheal intubation of patients is an effective method for controlling airway and breathing. However, laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is not easy in every case. There is a recent abundance of equipment used for controlling ventilation and intubation. Airtraq is one of those equipments. In this study, our main objective is to compare the success rates of the Airtraq and Macintosh (direct and classic) laryngoscopes in endotracheal intubation.

Methods: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, clinical study was performed on 80 patients who were operated under general anesthesia, ASA I-II, 18-65 years old. Patients were intubated using two different endotracheal intubation tools. Group A was intubated using the Macintosh (direct and classic) laryngoscope, meanwhile Group B was intubated using the Airtraq laryngoscope. Patients’ snoring complaints, modified Mallampati scores, sternomental distances, thyromental distances, interincisor distance measurements and Cormack-Lehane (C-L) laryngoscopic classification, upper lip bite test results, intubation time, number of intubation attempts, maneuvers and techniques used for facilitating intubation and complications arising from intubation were recorded.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of C-L scores (p=0.041). In all, 8 patients in the Macintosh group, and 2 patients in the Airtraq group were C-L grade III. In intubation of the Airtraq group, only 3 patients required facilitating techniques, meanwhile in intubation of the Macintosh group 15 patients we had to use one or more facilitating maneuver. The rate of Mallampati scoring “difficult” was 4/6 in the Macintosh and 2/11 in Airtraq laryngoscopy groups (p=0.553).

Conclusion: In cases with seemingly difficult intubations, we believe the Airtraq laryngoscope has an advantage over the Macintosh laryngoscope, owing to its better view of the oropharyngeal and glottic areas in addition to facilitating intubation in patients with limited head extension.

EISSN 2667-6370