Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 114697

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : UC31 - UC34 Full Version

Comparison between Standard Technique versus Reverse Manoeuvre of Airtraq Insertion for Tracheal Intubation in Lean versus Obese Patients undergoing Surgery under General Anaesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
Latika Laxmichand Dharmashi, Rajendra D Patel

1. MD Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesia, SN Medical College and Kumareshwar Hospital, Navanagar, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel Mumbai, Maharasthra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Latika Laxmichand Dharmashi,
W/o Dr Kiran Biradar #239/57, Near Lions School Extension Area, 1st Cross Vinayak Nagar, Near Spandana Hospital, Bagalkot-587101, Karnataka, India.


Introduction: Obese patients pose challenge to anaesthesiologist in terms of securing airway due to large tongue and anatomical variations, need a novel tracheal intubation technique to quickly secure airway in obese individuals. The airtraq laryngoscope with reverse technique of insertion is used to secure airway without classical sniffing position.

Aim: To compare the two techniques of airtraq insertion, standard and reverse manoeuvre, in lean versus obese patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.

Materials and Methods: This randomised clinical study was conducted from July 2012 to January 2014 at Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharasthra, India in a total of 200 American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to III undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Both lean and obese patients were randomly allocated to each technique. After induction of anaesthesia intubation was performed by an expert anaesthesiologist with each technique (three attempts) were used to intubate trachea. If there was a failure, switch over technique was applied. All the groups were analysed for intubation time, number of attempts, ease of intubation assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), haemodynamics, and complications. Data entry was done on a Microsoft Excel sheet and data analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 15.0.

Results: Both lean and obese groups were comparable in the airway and demographic characteristics. In lean patients there was no significant difference between intubation time with both standard and reverse manoeuvre. While in obese patients reverse manoeuvre (11.84±1.99 seconds) significantly reduced exposure time by 13 seconds as compared to standard technique (24.02±6.94 seconds), thereby reducing total duration of intubation (26.08±1.16 seconds) as compared to total duration of intubation with standard technique (39.62±8.95 seconds). Lean group was comparable in number of attempts with standard technique (47 patients in 1st attempt/3 patients in 2nd attempt) and reverse manoeuvre (49 patients in 1?supst attempt/1 patient in 2nd attempt). Obese group with reverse manoeuvre all were intubated with first attempt (50 patients) with standard technique (46 patients in 1st attempt/1 patient in 2nd attempt) and there was switch over from standard to reverse technique in three patients. Both lean and obese groups were comparable in complications with both technique.

Conclusion: Reverse manoeuvre proved beneficial in obese patients as it reduced intubation time as compared to standard technique, while lean patients showed no difference.


Exposure time, Intubation time, Visual Analogue Score

The airtraq, relatively a newer optical laryngoscope improved intubation difficulty score and ease of intubation when used in normal airway (1), clinically difficult airway and simulated difficult airway scenarios in mannequin (2),(3). This optical laryngoscope is used as rescue device for failed conventional laryngoscopy (4),(5). Airtraq provides direct view of glottis without the optimal position like alignment of airway axes for classic sniffing position (6). Main factor determining how quick the airway is secured with airtraq is the placement of airtraq in pharynx to get the view of glottis.

Ndoko SK et al., found that in some of the obese patients insertion of airtraq for intubation appeared difficult with standard technique. Hence, they tried to change the technique to reverse manoeuvre to facilitate intubation by airtraq. In reverse manoeuvre airtraq was inserted 180° opposite to standard technique like Guedels airway, once the tip of the blade reached the pharyngeal space then airtraq was rotated conventional position to get the glottic view for intubation (7),(8). Obesity is associated with clinical features and anatomical variations in airway that may increase difficulty in airway management. Obese patients tend to desaturate faster so it can be prevented by preoxygenation with pressurised oxygen along with quick and rapid method to secure airway with airtraq.

The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of reverse technique in obese patients over standard technique as compared to lean patients. It was hypothesised that reverse manoeuvre significantly reduced total intubation time in obese group versus standard technique while lean group showed no difference.The primary outcome measure was total duration of intubation (exposure time+modulation time) and secondary outcomes studied were number of attempts, complications, and ease of intubation assessed by VAS score.

Material and Methods

This randomised clinical study was conducted from July 2012 to January 2014 at Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, after an Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval (EC/94/2012).

Inclusion criteria: A total 200 patients of ASA physical status I to III, aged between 18-65 years, lean patients having BMI<25kg/m2, and obese patients having BMI>35kg/m2 undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were included after obtaining written informed consent for the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patient’s refusal, patients with limited mouth opening i.e., less than 3 cms, having symptomatic gastric reflex disease, patients with hiatus hernia were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A pilot study was conducted in 20 patients over one month. The primary outcome observed was exposure time which was difference of 13 seconds between two techniques (reverse technique reduced exposure time by 13 seconds). So, at an alpha level of 0.05% and power of study 80%, the calculated sample size by n master 1.0’ software was 100 for each group. Hence, a total of 200 patients were studied with 100 for each lean and obese group on basis of Body Mass Index (BMI). In each group patients were randomly allocated for standard and reverse technique (Table/Fig 1).

Study Procedure

Both obese and lean patients were allocated to each technique, using the toss method. After thorough preanaesthetic evaluation and informed consent, patients were premedicated with inj. ranitidine 150 mg Intravenous (i.v.) slow and inj. ramosetron 0.3 mg an hour before surgery. Once on the Operation Theatre (OT) table standard monitors attached and baseline parameters recorded. Intravenous cannula was inserted of appropriate size and intravenous fluid started. After preoxygenation for 3 minutes inj. midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, inj. fentanyl 2 mcg/kg, induced with inj. propofol 2 mg/kg and inj. vecuronium 0.08 mg/kg was given after confirmation of mask ventilation, then once there was adequate relaxation and depth of anaesthesia after 3 minutes patients were intubated with airtraq optical laryngoscope either by standard technique or reverse manoeuvre intubation. The intubation was done by the anaesthesiologist who had performed 50 intubations with Macintosh laryngoscope, 50 intubations with airtraq in mannequins and 20 intubation in human patients prior to study.

In the reverse manoeuvre airtraq was inserted opposite to the standard technique in the midline of the mouth like Guedels airway. Once the device was in pharyngeal space, it was rotated to get the glottic view, and the endotracheal tube of appropriate size was passed through the vocal cords. Intubation was confirmed by visual chest rise, auscultation for breath sounds and capnography then circuit was attached and patient was put on controlled ventilation with standard ventilation parameters to maintain end tidal carbon dioxide of 35-45 mmHg. Anaesthesia was continued with Oxygen and Nitrous (50:50), Isoflurane (mac1.2) and Vecuronium topups. At the end of the surgery all the patients were reversed and extubated.

Airway management characteristics: Following parameters were recorded throughout the study like exposure time, modulation time, total duration of intubation, number of attempts, complications, and VAS score for ease of intubation. Total intubation time was defined as time from the start of oral insertion of the airtraq optical laryngoscope to the visualisation of superior border of the endotracheal cuff passing through the vocal cords (sum of exposure time and modulation time). Exposure Time (ET) was the time required to achieve a centered view of glottic opening with airtraq. Modulation Time (MT) was the time required to manipulate the tube to pass through the glottic opening. All the anaesthesiologists who intubated were asked to rate the ease of intubation with each technique on VAS (0- very easy to 100-very difficult).

The rescue protocol was that if glottis could not be visualised within 30 seconds after the first attempt, mask ventilation was done for 1 minute and second attempt was tried. In between attempts patients were mask ventilated for 1 minute with 100% oxygen to maintain saturation. A maximum of three attempts were tried to intubate trachea with each technique after which it was switched over to the other technique.


Data entry was done on a Microsoft Excel sheet and data analysis was done with help of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 15.0 and sigma plot version no 11. Quantitative data are presented with the help of mean, standard deviation, comparison among the group was done with the Unpaired t-test. Qualitative data was presented with help of frequency and percentages table, comparison among the study was done with help of Chi-square test, p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.


All the patients included in the study were intubated with one of the either technique, and there were no failures in the study. Both lean and obese groups were comparable in their airway and demographic characteristics (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3).

In the lean group ET and total Intubation Time (IT) with both techniques showed no significant difference (Table/Fig 4). In the obese group exposure time with standard technique was 24.02±6.94 seconds, and with reverse manoeuvre 11.84±1.99 seconds (p-value <0.001); while total intubation time observed was 39.62±8.95 seconds with standard technique, and 26.08±1.16 seconds recorded with reverse manoeuvre (p-value <0.001). So reverse technique reduced total intubation time by 13 seconds by decreasing exposure time (Table/Fig 5).

Modulation time in the lean group with both standard technique and reverse manoeuvre was comparable (Table/Fig 4) while in obese patients with standard technique modulation time was significantly more (15.40±2.77 seconds) than the reverse manoeuvre (14.32±1.46 seconds). But an overall reduction in total intubation was noted with a significant decrease in exposure time (Table/Fig 5).

Number of attempts were comparable in the lean group with both technique. In obese patients with standard technique one patient required second attempt, who could not be intubated after 3rd attempt, was switched over to reverse manoevure. While, with the reverse technique all patients got intubated in a single attempt (Table/Fig 4),(Table/Fig 5). Anaesthesiologist involved in the study reported that intubation was easy and comparable in the lean groups for both techniques. However in the obese group, the intubation was significantly easier with the reverse technique (Table/Fig 4),(Table/Fig 5).

The most common upper airway complications were, soft palate injury, hard palate injury, tonsillar pillar injury and mucosal bleeding. Both groups were comparable in terms of the complications using both the insertion techniques (Table/Fig 6).


In this study, the reverse manoeuvre of insertion of airtraq was found to facilitate a tracheal intubation in obese patients compared to the standard technique. In lean individuals, both techniques were comparable for tracheal intubation time.

Obese patients were found to have airway abnormalities and variation in anatomical airway due to fat deposition. This makes alignment of airway axes difficult for intubation making intubation challenging for anaesthesiologists. Insertion of airtraq by standard technique requires crawling movements to push the tongue and soft tissue in obese patients. Considerable force is required to place tip of airtraq in pharynx with abrupt loss of resistance to the scope to visualise glottis, therefore standard technique prolonged intubation time in the present study. In the reverse technique, airtraq was inserted at 180° to the standard technique to the midline. Once it reached, it was rotated to the conventional pharyngeal position to visualise glottis. Quick passage of airtraq by reverse technique was because the whole blade can be rapidly placed in pharynx. Reverse manoeuvre brings the vocal cords nearer to the device allowing quick passage of endotracheal tube in addition to reducing the insertion time. Reverse manoeuvre reduced overall intubation time in obese group. Lean patients were found to have wide oral cavity due to less soft tissue, so insertion of airtraq by standard technique requires less force and dorsal curve of airtraq easily follows the anatomical contour of the hard palate. Even by reverse technique airtraq can be easily placed in lean groups, so both techniques were comparable in terms of intubation time.

Dhonneur G et al., evaluated standard and reverse technique in 80 patients (40 lean and 40 obese). They observed that reverse manoeuvre did not influence tracheal intubation in characteristics in lean groups and in obese patients standard technique of insertion found to be non significant in 20% of cases while reverse manoeuvre facilitated and expedited the tracheal intubation time by 12 seconds (9).

Minor upper airway injuries were noted in all the groups, overall complications observed in the present study was less. In the lean group few had mucosal bleeding with standard technique and tonsillar pillar injury with reverse manoeuvre;while in obese patients tonsillar pillar injury was noted with both technique. This was probably because the standard technique of placement of tip of airtraq requires considerable pressure. In the reverse manoeuvre, rotation of the blade may lead to tonsillar pillar injury. End results of this study were comparable with study done by Dhonneur G et al., (9), where both group patients had less injury with both techniques.As explained previously because of narrow oral cavity in obese patients due to large tongue and soft tissue, placement of airtraq with both technique requires considerable practice in obese patients and has to be done cautiously. Overall complications were less compared to Macintosh in previous studies (9),(10).


Airtraq cannot be used in all patients as its thickness is 1.8 mm and width is 2.8 cm, requires mouth opening to be atleast 3 cm. So, patients with mouth opening of less than 3 cms were excluded. As airtraq is a new device it needs expertisation and skill to reduce complications.


Insertion of airtraq by reverse manoeuvre was found to be superior to standard technique in terms of intubation time, number of attempts, and ease of insertion in obese patients as compared to lean patients.


Maharaj CH, Ocroinin D, Curley G, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the AIRTRAQ or the Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomised,controlled clinical trial. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:1093-99. [crossref] [PubMed]
Maharaj CH, Higgins BD, Harte BH, Laffey JC. Evaluation of intubation using the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthesist in easy and simulated difficult laryngoscopy – A manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:469-77. [crossref] [PubMed]
Derek K, Teksoz E, Ozkans S. Dagli G. Comparison of the performances of Airtraq and Manitosh laryngoscope in normal and challenging airway management. Turk Anaesthesia Int Care. 2009;37:168-74.
Maharaj CH, Costello JF, Mcdonnell JG, Harte BH, Laffey JG. The Airtraq as a rescue device following failed direct laryngoscope: A case series. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:598-60. [crossref] [PubMed]
Dhonneur G, Ndoko S, Amathieu R, Housseini LE, Poncelet C, Tual L. Tracheal intubation using the Airtraq in morbid obese patients undergoing emergency caesarian delivery. Anaesthesiology. 2007;106:629-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Br J Anaesthesia. 2008;100:263-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Tual L, Polliand C, Kamoun W, Housseini LEl, et al. Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: A randomised trial comparing the performances of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscope. Br J Anaesthesia. 2008;100:263-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Dhonneur G, Abdi W, Amathieu R, Ndoko S, Tual L. Optimising tracheal intubation success rate using the Airtraqlaryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2009;97:595-600. [crossref] [PubMed]
Dhonneur G, Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Attias A, Housseini LE, Polliand C, et al. A comparison of two techniques of inserting the Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:774-77. [crossref] [PubMed]
Gupta N, Singh S, Shouche S, Mishra SK. Tracheal intubation using the Airtraq video laryngoscope vs Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with anticipated difficult intubation. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2020;78(Supp1):S31-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ranieri Jr D, Filho SM, Batista S, do Nascimento Jr P. Comparison of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscope in obese patients in placed in ramped position. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:980-85. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58806.17064

Date of Submission: Jul 13, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 26, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 27, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 21, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 23, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 26, 2022 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)