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

Users Online : 73055

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 : March | Volume : 16 | Issue : 3 | Page : UC16 - UC18 Full Version

Comparison of Airtraq with Macintosh Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation in Paediatric Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Published: March 1, 2022 | DOI:
Yogita Dwivedi, Ankit Jain, Vijay Pratap Yadav, Atiharsh Mohan Agarwal

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Government Medical College, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Yogita Dwivedi,
D-29, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur House, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India.


Introduction: The Airtraq is a new intubation device that has been developed to facilitate tracheal intubation in patients with normal or difficult airway. The available paediatric sizes are 0, 1 and 2 and are of grey, purple, green colour. These can insert endotracheal tube of size 2.0-3.5/4-5.5/6-7.5, respectively.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Airtraq laryngoscope in comparison with Macintosh by experienced Anaesthesiologist for intubation in paediatric patients.

Materials and Methods: The randomised controlled trial was conducted at Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India, from December 2015 to August 2017. Fifty healthy children, aged 2-10 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades I/II, presenting for elective surgery were randomly allocated in two equal groups. Endotracheal intubation was done either using Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope. Duration of intubation (primary variable), number of attempts, ease of intubation, oesophageal intubation, optimisation maneuvers, Percentage Of Glottic Opening (POGO) scoring and haemodynamic parameters were compared between two groups. Patients’ demographic data, intubation time, haemodynamic variables were analysed by Unpaired t-test. While number of attempts for intubation, ease of intubation, optimisation maneuvers and POGO scoring were analysed by Fisher’s-exact test. Data was presented as mean±SD with categorical data presented as frequency (n) and percentages (%). The p-value of <0.05 was considered as significant.

Results: There was no difference in demographic variables and duration of surgery between two groups. Intubation time, which was taken as primary variable, was found to be significantly longer in Macintosh (56.28±6.02 sec) as compared to Airtraq (25.60±3.73 sec) with p-value <0.0001. In terms of ease of intubation and POGO scoring, Airtraq was better as compared to Macintosh. Haemodynamically, Airtraq was found to be better as compared to Macintosh reflected by postintubation heart rate which was 110±7.84 beats/min with Airtraq while 119.32±10.61 beats/min with Macintosh (p-value=0.0028). The two groups were statistically comparable in terms of number of attempts, optimisation maneuvers and mean blood pressure changes.

Conclusion: It can be concluded that Airtraq is a reliable and promising alternative to Macintosh for endotracheal intubation in paediatric patients as seen by duration of intubation, better laryngeal view, ease of intubation and haemodynamic changes.


Airway, Glottic opening, Indirect laryngoscopy

The Airtraq (Prodol Meditec SA Vizcaya, Spain 2005) is a new intubation device that has been developed to facilitate tracheal intubation in patients with normal or difficult airway. It is available in sizes 0, 1 and 2 and is of grey, purple, green colour and can insert endotracheal tube of size 2.-3.5/4-5.5/6-7.5, respectively (1). It was developed by Pedra A Gandarias. It has an exaggerated curvature of the blade and contains a series of lenses, prisms and mirrors that transfer the image from the illuminated tip to a proximal view finder. A view of the glottis is provided without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and laryngeal axis (1). The head and tongue of a child are larger, epiglottis is floppy, omega-shaped and located at higher level, larynx is funnel shaped and narrowest part is subglottic region while in adults, it is at level of vocal cords. They have limited oxygen reserves and high oxygen consumption (2). Airway gadgets used in management of paediatric airway are limited. Video-laryngoscopes have limited utility as they prolong intubation time and high failure rates (3).

Previous studies comparing use of Airtraq with Macintosh laryngoscope concluded that Airtraq has easy learning curve and provides superior intubating condition in adults (4),(5). But, due to difference in airway anatomy, these results cannot be extrapolated in paediatric population. It was hypothesised that intubation with Airtraq would provide superior intubating conditions as compared to Macintosh blade.

This study was conducted to compare intubation time, Percentage Of Glottic Opening (POGO) scoring, success rate of intubation of Airtraq with Macintosh laryngoscope, which is most commonly used in paediatric population.

Material and Methods

The randomised controlled trial was conducted after approval of Hospital Research Ethical Committee (letter no. Anaes\231\2015) at Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India, during December 2015 to August 2017. Informed and written parental consent was taken for each participant.

Inclusion criteria: Total 50 healthy children aged 2-10 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I/II, who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation were included in this study.

Exclusion criteria: Subjects with history of upper respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular and central nervous system disease, risk of gastric aspiration, respiratory problems or difficult airway were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size estimation was based on the primary outcome namely intubation time. Power of study as 80%, alpha error as 0.05, and beta error at 0.2 minimum. Twenty five subjects per group were considered, based on 25 seconds (50%) reduction in the intubation time comparing Airtraq with Macintosh laryngoscope.


Solid food was not allowed for 8 hours preoperatively and clear liquids were permitted up to 2 hours prior to induction of anaesthesia. Fifty patients were equally randomised into 2 groups Airtraq and Macintosh of 25 each, using sealed envelope by an anaesthetist not involved in the study (Table/Fig 1).

After shifting the patient to the operation theatre, intravenous (i.v.) access was obtained. Five lead Electrocardiogram (ECG) was connected, pulse oximeter, temperature and non invasive blood pressure monitor attached and baseline parameters were recorded. After preoxygenation with 100% oxygen for 3-5 minutes, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, glycopyrolate 0.005 mg/kg and fentanyl 2 μg/kg was given 1-2 minutes before induction. A sleep dose of propofol (2-3 mg/kg) was titrated to induce anaesthesia. Patients in whom bag and mask ventilation was possible were given atracurium 0.5 mg/kg over 60 seconds and laryngoscopy was done after 2 minutes. Trachea was then intubated by anaesthetist experienced in the use of both laryngoscope (at least 30 intubations with each prior to data recording). Correct placement of tracheal tube was confirmed by capnography and bilateral chest auscultation. Thereafter, the lungs were mechanically ventilated for the duration of surgery and anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane (0.6-1%) in a mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen in 3:1 ratio and atracurium 0.1 mg/kg. No other medication was administered or procedure performed during the 3 minutes of data collection period after the tracheal intubation. Residual neuromuscular blockade was reversed with neostigmine 40 mcg/kg and glycopyrrolate 10 mcg/kg.

Either of the two laryngoscopes was selected for intubation, based on the group allocated. A blade of 1 or 2 of standard Macintosh blade was selected in according to preference of the anaesthetist. Paediatric size (size 1/2) Airtraq was chosen and appropriate size endotracheal tube was attached to it. The view of glottis at laryngoscopy was scored according to POGO scoring. Glottic view scoring was done after primary visualisation of glottis. A maximum of 3 attempts were allowed before considering intubation as failed one. Any loss of visualisation due to “fogging” or “red-out” was recorded.

Parameters Assessed

Primary outcome:

1. Intubation time (time recorded from termination of manual ventilation with a facemask to visible chest rise and appearance of CO2 trace in monitor). Intubation requiring more than 120 seconds was considered as failed intubation.

Secondary outcome:

1. Success rate of intubation (first attempt success was correct placement of the tracheal tube within 60 seconds without oxygen saturation below 94% during the attempt) (6).
2. Number of attempts (a maximum of three attempts were taken before considering it failed intubation)
3. Ease of intubation (measured by visual analog scale from 1-10, 10 means most difficult or failed intubation and 1 mean very easy intubation)
4. Number of oesophageal intubation
5. Optimisation maneuvers required to perform tracheal intubation (0-No maneuvers required, 1-External Laryngeal pressure, 2-Use of a stylet)
6. Haemodynamic changes (change in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure)
7. POGO scoring (denotes visual estimation of laryngeal opening in score of 0-100%, 0-none of the glottic opening is seen, 100-full visualisation of larynx from inter arytenoids notch to anterior commissure of vocal cords) (7).

Statistical Analysis

Patients’ demographic data, intubation time, haemodynamic variables were analysed by Unpaired t-test. While number of attempts for intubation, ease of intubation, optimisation maneuvers and POGO scoring were analysed by Fisher’s-exact test. Data was presented as mean standard deviation with categorical data presented frequency (n) and percentages (%). The p-value of <0.05 was considered as significant using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 13.0 and for analysis.


There was no difference in demographic variables and duration of surgery between two groups (Table/Fig 2). Total 50 paediatric patients were included in the study and no failed intubation was seen in both the groups. Intubation time was taken as primary variable and it was found to be significantly longer in Macintosh group as compared to Airtraq group with a p-value of <0.0001. In terms of ease of intubation, mean VAS scores was better for Airtraq as compared to Macintosh mean with a p-value of 0.01 (Table/Fig 3).

The mean POGO scores were 75 for Macintosh and 100 for Airtraq laryngoscope (p-value=0.04). Haemodynamically, Airtraq was found to be better as compared to Macintosh as reflected by heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure immediately and at 3 minutes after intubation (Table/Fig 3). The two groups were statistically comparable in terms of number of attempts, optimisation maneuvers, mean blood pressure changes. Airway trauma (dental/lip injury, blood on laryngoscope) was less frequent with Airtraq but the results were not statistically significant.


Role of Airtraq as a rescue device in difficult airway in paediatric population is well-documented in Pierre Robins syndrome (8) and Treacher Collins syndrome (9). However, its role in routine airway management is still debatable despite its portability, availability of smaller sizes, cost, and faster learning curve.

This study success rate of intubation with Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes was 100% with no failed intubation with size 1 and 2 airtraq. However, other studies have found relatively higher intubation failure rates especially in infants intubated with Airtraq size 0 (6). This has been attributed to the trajectory at which the endotracheal tube leaves the Airtraq which causes it to hit the posterior commissure leading to inability to pass the endotracheal tube despite good laryngeal view. To prevent this, the Airtraq device must be pulled anteriorly until the larynx appears at the center of the eyepiece. A slight lifting and rotation of scope can be useful maneuvers (6).

Intubation time with Airtraq was 25.60 seconds, which was less as compared to Macintosh with a p-value of 0.0001. Other studies (10),(11), reported a difference in intubation time between two devices varying between 10 to 25 seconds in hands of novice and experienced anaesthesiologist. In the paediatric age group, Airtraq has shown to provide superior POGO scores with success rate similar to conventional laryngoscope but, this data is very limited (10),(12). Use of less optimisation maneuver, prefixed intubation channel, no axis alignment, better glottic visualisation with Airtraq, as compared with direct laryngoscopy, could be attributing factors for less intubation time with Airtraq laryngoscope (11),(12).

In terms of ease of intubation, mean VAS scores were better for Airtraq as compared to Macintosh. Similar findings were reported by the present trial and other studies too (12). The inbuilt fixed channel sometimes interferes with manipulations required during tube advancement. Sun Y et al., concluded that paediatric Airtraq is difficult to use in comparison to adults (3). Endotracheal tube negotiation could be a problem which can be overcome by using an intubation stylet or a bougie.

Heart rate at 3 minutes after intubation in Airtraq group was found to be 110.96 while in Macintosh it was 119.32, with a p-value of 0.0028 that is statistically significant. Decreased duration of laryngoscopy and lifting force resulted in less stimulation of the periglottic sympathetic plexus with use of paediatric Airtraq laryngoscope (11),(12).


Firstly, the potential for bias exists as, it is impossible to blind the anaesthesiologist to the device being used. Secondly, certain measurements used in this study are of subjective nature. Thirdly, this study was conducted by experienced user of both devices. The results may differ in the hands of less experienced users. Lastly, this study was conducted in patients of normal airway so, the results might differ when used in cases of difficult airway.


On the basis of this study, it was concluded that, Airtraq size 1 and 2 laryngoscope can be added to the armamentarium of paediatric anaesthesiologist. Ease of intubation, excellent laryngeal view, lesser intubation time and reduced haemodynamic alterations are its key features.


Das B, Samanta A, Mitra S, Jamil SN. Comparative evaluation of Airtraq optical Laryngoscope and Miller's blade in paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation: A randomised, controlled trial Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(4):326-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
White MC, Marsh CJ, Beringer RM, Nolan JA, Choi AY, Medlock KE, et al. A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(3):226-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
Sun Y, Lu Y, Huang Y, Jiang H. Paediatric video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:1056-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
Maharaj CH, O'Croinin 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 trial. Anaesthesia. 2006;61(11):1093-99. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bhandari G, Shahi KS, Asad M, Bhakuni R. Airtraq versus Macintosh laryngoscope: A comparative study in tracheal intubation. Anaesth Essays Res. 2013;7(2):232-36. [crossref] [PubMed]
Vlatten A, Fielding A, Brenard A, Litz S, Mac B, Soder C. Comparison of the Airtraq Laryngoscope to the direct Laryngoscopy in paediatric airway. J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2012;2:71-76.
Levitan RM, Hollander JE, Ochroch EA. A grading system for direct Laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2002;54:10:1009-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
Iwai H, Kanai R, Takaku Y, Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Successful tracheal intubation using Paediatric Airtraq optical laryngoscope Robin sequence. Masui. 2011;60:189-91.
Pean D, Desdotis A, Asthenone K, Lejus C. Airtraq laryngoscope for intubation in Treacher Collins syndrome. Paedia tr Anaesth. 2009;19:698-99. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ali QE, Amir SH, Firdaus U, Siddiqui OA, Azhar AZ. A comparative study of the efficacy of Paediatric Airtraq with conventional laryngoscope in children. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79(12):1366-70.
Riad W, Moussa A, Wong D. Airtraq versus Macintoch laryngoscope in intubation performance in the paediatric population. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012;6(4):332-35. [crossref] [PubMed]
Thakare DW, Malde AD. An observational study of feasibility of tracheal intubation using Airtraq in peadiatric population. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017;33:365-70. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/48692.16096

Date of Submission: Feb 01, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Mar 04, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Dec 15, 2021
Date of Publishing: Mar 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: Feb 02, 2021
• Manual Googling: Aug 16, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Dec 14, 2021 (20%)

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)