The intubating laryngeal mask airway compared with direct laryngoscopy

M. S. Avidan, A. Harvey, N. Chitkara, J. Ponte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

49 Scopus citations


We have compared the ability of naive intubators to intubate the trachea using a laryngoscope and an intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) after receiving basic training, in a randomized, prospective, crossover study in 60 patients. Ventilation of the lungs via the ILMA was also compared with ventilation with a face mask. There was no significant difference in successful intubation between the techniques (38 of 89 with the ILMA and 33 of 93 with direct laryngoscopy; ns). In patients in whom participants failed in their intubation attempts with the ILMA, investigators achieved success in 89% (16 of 18). Satisfactory ventilation was more common with the ILMA (50 of 51) than with the face mask (43 of 60) (P = 0.0001). A total of 98% (89 of 91) of ILMA were inserted successfully, with a mean insertion time of 19.6 s, and 78% (69/89) of these insertions were achieved in less than 26 s. The ILMA may be useful for emergency oxygenation and ventilation, but these results do not support its use for intubation by those not trained in advanced airway management and ILMA use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)615-617
Number of pages3
JournalBritish journal of anaesthesia
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1999


  • Equipment, masks anaesthesia
  • Heart, resuscitation
  • Intubation tracheal
  • Intubation tracheal, technique
  • Ventilation, mechanical


Dive into the research topics of 'The intubating laryngeal mask airway compared with direct laryngoscopy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this