Indian Journal of Respiratory Care

IJRC Email      Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of assessment of vocal cord mobility following thyroid surgery using Macintosh Laryngoscope and Airtraq

Siri Kandavar

Keywords : Airtraq, macintosh laryngoscope, thyroidectomy, vocal cord assessment

Citation Information : Kandavar S. Comparison of assessment of vocal cord mobility following thyroid surgery using Macintosh Laryngoscope and Airtraq. Indian J Respir Care 2016; 5 (2):726-733.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-11010-05205

License: NA

Published Online: 13-12-2022

Copyright Statement:  NA


Introduction: Vocal cord assessment after thyroidectomy, routinely performed by anaesthesiologist by direct laryngoscopy in the immediate postoperative period is associated with significant haemodynamic changes and patient discomfort. Aim: Comparison of patient comfort, haemodynamic response and accuracy of assessment of vocal cord mobility between Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscope. Methodology: In a prospective, randomised controlled study, 82 euthyroid patients, ASA PS 1-2, aged 20-60 years, of either gender undergoing thyroidectomy under general anaesthesia were randomised to one of two groups, Group M and Group A. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl, maintained with morphine, vecuronium, nitrous oxide and isoflurane in oxygen to maintain a MAC of 1-1.3%. At the end of surgery, patients were extubated after complete reversal of neuromuscular blockade and when fully awake. Vocal cord movement and haemodynamic changes were assessed three minutes later using either Airtraq (Group A) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group M). Patient reactivity score (Favourable - No grimace or facial grimace; Unfavourable – Any head, neck and limb movements or cough). Vocal cord movements were again assessed by an ENT surgeon 48 hours later. Results: Demographic data, type and duration of surgery were similar in both groups. 63.4% of patients in Group A had favourable scores compared to 29.3% in Group M even though duration of laryngoscopy was longer in Group A. There was no significant difference in haemodynamic changes between the groups. Conclusion: Patients are more comfortable during vocal cord assessment with Airtraq laryngoscopy even though duration of laryngoscopy is longer when compared to Macintosh laryngoscope.

  1. Christou N, Mathonnet M. Complications after total thyroidectomy. J Visc Surg 2013;150(4):249-56.
  2. Bhattacharyya N, Fried MP. Assessment of the morbidity and complications of total thyroidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128(4):389-92.
  3. Calò PG, Pisano G, Medas F et al. Identification alone versus intraoperative neuromonitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve during thyroid surgery: experience of 2034 consecutive patients. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 43(1):1.
  4. Ehrenwerth J, Eisenkraft JB, Berry JM, editors. Anesthesia equipment: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013
  5. Kundra P, Kumar V, Srinivasan K, Gopalakrishnan S, Krishnappa S. Laryngoscopic techniques to assess vocal cord mobility following thyroid surgery. ANZ J Surg 2010; 80(11):817-21.
  6. Dorsch JA, Dorsch SE, editors. 5th ed. Understanding anesthesia equipment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012
  7. Bensghir M, Hemmaoui B, Houba A, Haimeur C, Kamili ND, Azendour H. Diagnosis of bilateral cord vocal paralysis by the Airtraq laryngoscope: A case report. Eg J Anaesth 2014; 30 (4):427-9.
  8. Lu Y, Jiang H, Zhu YS. Airtraq laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2011; 66 (12):1160-7.
  9. Bensghir M, Chouikh C, Bouhabba N, Fjjouji S, Kasouati J, Azendour H, Kamili ND. Comparison between the Airtraq, X-Lite, and direct laryngoscopes for thyroid surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60 (4):377-84.
  10. Lu CY, Kwok KF, Yuen PW. A prospective evaluation of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis during thyroidectomy. Arch Surg. 2000; 135 (2):204-7
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.