Comparison of Airtraq Versus MacIntosh Intubation Via Nasal Approach

Comparison of Airtraq vs. MacIntosh Intubation Via Nasal Approach

Status

UNKNOWN

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT00847184

Enrollment

200

Registered

2009-02-19

Start date

2009-02-28

Completion date

2009-11-30

Last updated

2009-02-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Tracheal Intubation

Keywords

nasal intubation, Aitraq, difficult intubation

Brief summary

Time, success rate, and number of optimising maneuvers for tracheal intubation via the nasal approach are not different when Aitraq technique is used compared to a standard MacIntosh blade.

Detailed description

One hundred adult patients with an expected easy intubation and 100 patients with an expected difficult intubation are enrolled. Intubations are performed by two experienced fully boarded anesthesiologists. The design of the study is prospective and randomised.

Interventions

DEVICEIntubation

Intubation using the standard MacIntosh blade

DEVICEAirtraq

Intubation with the use of the Airtraq technique

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to No maximum

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Scheduled for nasal intubation * Adult

Exclusion criteria

* Age under 18 years

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Time for intubation	10 month

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Success rate for intubation	10 month

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026