Users Online: 657 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 

RSACP wishes to inform that it shall be discontinuing the dispatch of print copy of JOACP to it's Life members. The print copy of JOACP will be posted only to those life members who send us a written confirmation for continuation of print copy.
Kindly email your affirmation for print copies to [email protected] preferably by 30th June 2019.

Year : 2014  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 526-532

Comparison of combitube, easy tube and tracheal tube for general anesthesia

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Shahadra, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Asha Tyagi
103, Siddhartha Enclave, New Delhi - 110 014
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.142849

Rights and Permissions

Background & Aims: The Combitube; and EasyTube™ enable effective ventilation whether placed in the trachea or esophagus and can be used in prehospital settings, as well as in "Cannot Ventilate Cannot Intubate" situations in the operating room. Whether they can be continued to provide general anesthesia, if required, is not established.Thus the efficacy of Combitube and EasyTube was evaluated and compared with the tracheal tube for general anesthesia using controlled ventilation. Materials and Methods: Combitube, EasyTube and tracheal tubes were used in 30 patients each to secure the airway in a randomized controlled manner. Ventilatory parameters were measured along with hemodynamic variables, and characteristics related to device placement. Results: There was no significant difference in the various ventilatory parameters including minute ventilation requirement to maintain eucapnia amongst the three groups at any time point . There was no hypoxia or hypercarbia in any patient at any time. Placement of EasyTube was more difficult (P = 0.01) as compared with both Combitube and tracheal tube. EasyTube and Combitube resulted in higher incidence of minor trauma than with a tracheal tube (P = 0.00). Conclusion: Combitube and EasyTube may be continued for general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective nonlaparoscopic surgeries of moderate duration, if placed for airway maintenance. Given the secondary observations regarding placement characteristics of the airway devices, it, however cannot be concluded that the devices are a substitute for endotracheal tube for airway maintenance per se, unless specifically indicated

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded370    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal