A Comparative Study of Difficult Tracheal Intubation Using Airtraq and Light Wand in Adult Patients

Abstract Background: Airway management is critical in anesthesia, with difficult intubation posing significant risks. This study compares the efficacy of Airtraq and Lightwand devices in adult patients with anticipated difficult airways, focusing on intubation success, duration, hemodynamics, and complications. Objectives: To compare Airtraq and Lightwand in terms of intubation time, success rates, hemodynamic responses, and complications in patients with difficult airways. Methodology: A prospective, observational study was conducted on 80 ASA I/II patients with Mallampati grades III/IV, randomly assigned to Airtraq (n=40) or Lightwand (n=40) groups. Parameters measured included intubation duration (T1: device insertion to visualization/glow; T2: tube placement), number of attempts, hemodynamic changes (heart rate, blood pressure), and complications (e.g., trauma, sore throat). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results: Both groups showed comparable demographic and airway characteristics. Mean intubation times were similar (Airtraq: 32.43±15.76 sec; Lightwand: 31.83±14.29 sec; p=0.630). First-attempt success rates were high (Airtraq: 97.5%; Lightwand: 92.5%; p=0.615). Hemodynamic responses (heart rate, systolic/diastolic pressure) were comparable at all stages (p>0.05). Complications were minimal (Airtraq: 2.5% lip trauma; Lightwand: 5% gum trauma; p=0.261). No significant differences were observed in optimization maneuvers or failure rates. Conclusion: Airtraq and Lightwand are equally effective for tracheal intubation in difficult airways, with no significant differences in time, success rates, hemodynamics, or complications.