A comparative study of overall efficacy and hemodynamic effects following blind oro-tracheal intubation with ILMA vs. conventional direct laryngoscopy guided intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope

Background: Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) is a new device to guide blind oro-tracheal intubation thus offering a new approach for endotracheal intubation and is expected to produce less sympathetically driven haemodynamic stress response. The purpose of this study was to assess overall efficacy, haemodynamic advantage and complication rate with use of ILMA compared to conventional method of endotracheal intubation with use of Macintosh Laryngoscope (ML). Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted on 60 adult patients comparable in age, sex, weight, MPC and ASA status scheduled for elective surgeries. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 each. Both the groups received similar balanced anaesthesia technique (Inj. fentanyl 2 µg/kg, propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg, rocuronium 1 mg/kg). Tracheal intubation was done using either ILMA or Macintosh laryngoscope. The intubation time, number of attempts required for successful intubation, haemodynamic changes and oro-pharyngo-laryngeal complications encountered during both the methods were recorded. Results: Time to intubation was comparatively longer in the ILMA group than laryngoscopy group (P 0.05) and ILMA appears to be offering no haemodynamic advantage over ML. The incidence of complications was rare and comparable amongst both the groups (P >0.05). Conclusions: Therefore in patients with normal airway blind intubation with ILMA is a successful and equally efficacious method without significant oro-pharyngo-laryngeal morbidity but offers no added haemodynamic advantage compared to conventional direct laryngoscopy with ML. Thus ILMA may act as a suitable alternative to ML for patients with normal airway.