{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047619047619047616, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027777777777777776, 'mean_word_length': 5.815315315315315, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of times to achieve tracheal intubation with three techniques using the laryngeal or intubating laryngeal mask airway *

Summary We compared the times to intubate the trachea using three techniques in 60 healthy patients with normal airways: (i) fibreoptic intubation with a 6.0‐mm reinforced tracheal tube through a standard laryngeal mask airway (laryngeal mask−fibreoptic group); (ii) fibreoptic intubation with a dedicated 7.0‐mm silicone tracheal tube through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (intubating laryngeal mask−fibreoptic group); (iii) blind intubation with the dedicated 7.0‐mm silicone tracheal tube through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (intubating laryngeal mask−blind group). Mean (SD) total intubation times were significantly shorter in the intubating laryngeal mask−blind group (49 (20) s) than in either of the other two groups (intubating laryngeal mask−fibreoptic 74 (21) s; laryngeal mask−fibreoptic group 75 (36) s; p < 0.001). However, intubation at the first attempt was less successful with the intubating laryngeal mask−blind technique (15/20 (75%)) than in the other two groups (intubating laryngeal mask−fibreoptic 19/20 (95%) and laryngeal mask−fibreoptic 16/20 (80%)) although these differences were not statistically significant. We conclude that in this patient group, all three techniques yield acceptable results. If there is a choice of techniques available, the intubating laryngeal mask−blind technique would result in the shortest intubation time.