Context: Considering the potential difficulties associated with conventional laryngoscopy in difficult incubating conditions, airway devices that increase the ease of performing can have a profound clinical impact.

Aim: The current study compared the efficacy and safety of AirTraq (AirTraqR, Prodol Meditec, Vizcaya, Spain)l aryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope.

Settings and Design: The current study was aProspective, Randomized, single-blind controlled trial, conducted in Govt. Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, between May 2015 and January 2016. Total of 60 subjects requiring endotracheal anesthesia were randomly allocated to AirTraqR or Macintosh laryngoscope groups. Cormack-Lehane and Intubation Difficulty Score, intubating time, hemodynamic parameters and complication rate were compared.

Statistical methods used: Independent sample t-test. chi Square test/Fisher’s exact test and two way repeated measures ANOVA were used appropriately.

Results: Both groups were comparable in all the baseline parameters. The intubation difficulty score (1.47 Vs 0.17, p value < 0.001) and duration of intubation (17.2 Vs 11.03, p value < 0.001) were significantly higher in Macintosh group as compared to AirTraqR. AirTraqRgroup had a higher proportion of subjects in CL grade 1 (93% vs 43.3%, P value < 0.001). The proportion of subjects with airway trauma was also higher in Macintosh group (6.67% vs 10%, P value 0.64) as compared to AirTraqR group. A higher proportion of subjects in AirTraqR group were in Operator Grade I (93.3% Vs 66.7%). The hemodynamic parameters were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: AirTraqR laryngoscope shall be considered ahead of Macintosh laryngoscope, where ever feasible.