Effect of head position on the success rate of blind intubation using intubating supraglottic airway devices
Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan
Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan
Correspondence
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 44 844 3333; fax: +81 44 844 0468.

Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan
Correspondence
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 44 844 3333; fax: +81 44 844 0468.

Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan
Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3–9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Kanagawa, Japan
Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan
Article Info
To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.

Fig. 1
The Fastrach with dedicated silicone wire-reinforced tube (A) and the air-Q with a standard tube (B) in place.
Fig. 2
CONSORT flow chart.
Abstract
Background
To evaluate the effect of head position on the performance of intubating supraglottic airway devices, we compared the success rate of blind intubation in the head-elevated and the pillowless head positions with the LMA Fastrach and the air-Q, and the change of glottic visualization through the air-Q.
Methods
We assigned 193 patients to two groups according to the device used and subgrouped by head position used for intubation: Fastrach/pillowless, Fastrach/head-elevated, air-Q/pillowless, and air-Q/head-elevated. Blind intubation through the Fastrach or the air-Q was attempted up to twice after induction of general anesthesia. Before the attempt at blind intubation with the air-Q, the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score was also fiberscopically evaluated at the outlet of the device in both head positions in a cross-over fashion.
Results
The Fastrach significantly facilitated blind intubation compared with the air-Q in both the pillowless and head-elevated positions: 87.2% in Fastrach/pillowless vs 65.9% in air-Q/pillowless (P=.048), 90% in Fastrach/head-elevated vs 53.7% in air-Q/head-elevated (P<.001). The head-elevated position did not significantly affect the success rate of blind intubation for either device (P=.97 in Fastrach, P=.37 in air-Q). Although the head-elevated position significantly improved the POGO score from the median (10-90 percentile) 60% (0-100%) in the pillowless position to 80% (0-100%) (P=.008), it did not contribute to successful blind intubation with the air-Q.
Conclusion
Although the head-elevated position improved glottic visualization in the air-Q, the head position had minimal influence on the success rate of blind intubation with either the Fastrach or the air-Q.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Purchase access to this article
Claim Access
If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.
Subscribe to this title
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
Sources of support: None
Registration of Clinical Trials: UMIN000011226 (18 July 2013)
Name of organization and the date of assembly: N/A
Related Articles
Searching for related articles..
