Abstract:Kamga et al. [1] evaluated the performance of the Airtraq® (Prodol Meditec S.A., Vizcaya, Spain) videolaryngoscope for awake flexible nasal bronchoscopy in patients with an anticipated difficult airway. To differentiate the effect of one factor on the primary outcome in a randomised controlled trial, all other factors must be standardised to avoid potential bias. However, other than the limitations described in the discussion section, we have noted several issues in the methods and results of this study that have not been addressed. First, as a gold standard technique for management of an anticipated difficult airway, adequate airway anaesthesia and sedation are vital for success and patient comfort [2]. In the methods, the authors provide details of airway anaesthesia in the Airtraq group, but not the anaesthetic techniques used for the upper and lower airways in the flexible bronchoscopy group. It would be interesting to know if same methods were used for both groups. Both the nerve blocks and transtracheal injection used in this study are invasive procedures. For patient comfort, we favour the use of only topical local anaesthesia of the airway in combination with a standard or modified ‘spray as you go’ technique when awake tracheal intubation is performed with either the fibreoptic bronchoscope or videolaryngoscope [3, 4]. Second, for a comparative study of airway devices, equal competence of participants with the studied tools is mandatory [5]. We note that up to 72% of cases were performed by trainees in this study. The experience of an expert was clearly defined, but experience of trainees in these techniques was not provided. The results of this study show that success rate of awake tracheal intubation for trainees under expert supervision was only 69% with the Airtraq and 82% with the bronchoscope, indicating low competence for both tools. It is unclear whether the trainers participating in this study were evenly distributed in both groups. We are concerned that significant between-group differences in the competence of trainees with both studied tools have biased the findings of this small study. Third, it was unclear why two intubation pathways were utilised, that is, nasal with the bronchoscope and oral with the Airtraq. This may further confuse the interpretation of primary and secondary outcomes. Finally, in the design of this non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, both an 8% non-inferiority limit and similar success rates of 99% for both studied tools were hypothesised. The results show that the success rate was 82% (32/39) with the Airtraq and 97% (38/39) with the bronchoscope. An absolute between-group risk difference of 15% exceeds the designed non-inferiority limit (see Fig. 2, Kamga et al. [1]). Most important, all seven videolaryngoscopy failures were successful following conversion to fibreoptic-guided intubation. In these cases, we cannot agree with the authors that the Airtraq is not non-inferior to the fibreoptic bronchoscope in this setting.

The Comparison of Different Nasotracheal Intubation Methods for Patients with Predictable Difficult Airway

A Study of Laryngeal Mask Airway Aided Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy-Guided Tracheal Intubation in Anticipated Difficult Airways Patients

The Choice of Tracheal Canola Approach of the Anticipated Difficult Intubation under Conscious Sedation and Sur-face Anaesthesia

Comparison Of Haemodynamic Responses To Orotracheal Intubation With Glidescope (R) Videolaryngoscope And Fibreoptic Bronchoscope

Efficacy of Nasotracheal Intubation Using Blind Tracheal Intubation Device Combined with End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Technique in Patients with Difficult Airway

A comparison between the Disposcope endoscope and fiberoptic bronchoscope for nasotracheal intubation-A randomized controlled trial

A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Non-Channeled King Vision, McGrath MAC Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients with Predicted Difficult Intubations

Application and effectiveness evaluation of nasotracheal intubation using lightwand in patients with difficult airways during intubation

Comparative Study of Four Intubation Techniques for Difficult Airway

Comparison of fibreoptic-guided orotracheal intubation through classic and single-use laryngeal mask airways

Evaluation of Endotracheal Intubation with a Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscope in Lateral Patient Positioning: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

A comparison between the Disposcope endoscope and fibreoptic bronchoscope for nasotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

Study on the Effectiveness of Airtraq Laryngoscope Combined with a Bougie for Tracheal Intubation

Comparative Analysis of Hemodynamic Responses and Oropharyngeal Complications in Tracheal Intubation: Evaluating Conventional, Video, and Rigid Video Laryngoscopes Under General Anesthesia

A Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscope with Macintosh Laryngoscope for Laryngeal Views

Comparing Performance of Flexible Bronchoscopy with Videolaryngoscopy for Awake Tracheal Intubation

Application of HC-videolaryngoscopy in nasotracheal intubation for patients with predicted difficult airway undergoing oral maxillofacial surgery

Efficacy of Shikani Laryngoscope-Guided Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Maxillofacial Surgery

Clinical application of flexible endoscope assisted by pillow-under-shoulder in patients with difficult airway

Comparison of Disposcope endscope and GlideScope vedio laryngoscope in the application of double-lumen endobronchial intubation in difficult airway

Comparison of Shikani with HC Laryngoscope in Nasal Intubation