Hi Nigel,
Thank you for your comment and I feel it is only appropriate that readers are allowed to see it.
I maintain my comment that the Airtraq is an inferior product and am extremely concerned that institutions would purchase this device instead of a true video laryngoscope leaving patients at unnecessary risk.
The nature of the PatientSafe Network is to provide front line staff with the best environments to provide optimal care to their patients. The decision on what constitutes the best environment for patient care must come from staff who work on the front line.
If there are front line staff who are willing to independently support the Airtraq as a suitable device then I will willingly include their comments here.
Please note that while the Airtraq may be cheaper than a videolaryngoscope we must take into account the cost of adverse events which come from not providing the best environments for patient care – see: https://www.psnetwork.org/13-the-c-word/
Thank you again

I would also like to draw your attention to the paper by Suppan et al:
Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2015, 1–10

This study of 1866 patients examined 24 randomized controlled trials comparing any intubation device with the Macintosh laryngoscope in human subjects with cervical spine immobilization. The primary outcome was the risk of tracheal intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were quality of glottis visualization, time until successful intubation, and risk of oropharyngeal complications.
Meta analyses was performed for five intubation devices (Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-Mac, Glidescope, and McGrath). The Airtraq was associated with a statistically significant reduction of the risk of intubation failure at the first attempt, a higher rate of Cormack–Lehane grade 1, a reduction of time until successful intubation, and a reduction of oropharyngeal complications. Other devices were associated with improved glottis visualization but no statistically significant differences in intubation failure or time to intubation compared with conventional laryngoscopy. Suppan et al concluded: in situations where the spine is immobilized, the Airtraq device reduces the risk of intubation failure. There is a lack of evidence for the usefulness of other intubation devices.

The article makes the statement (again with no supporting data) that devices allowing simultaneous video & direct laryngoscopy represent a safety advantage over either direct laryngoscopes or video laryngoscopes. However I’d like to drawn attention to the article by Wallace et al: A comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation using a McGrath MAC laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope Anaesthesia 2015, 70, 1281–1285

Wallace et al compared the McGrath MAC when used as both a direct and an indirect laryngoscope with a standard Macintosh laryngoscope in patients without predictors of a difficult tracheal intubation.
The authors found higher median Intubation Difficulty Scores with the McGrath MAC as a direct laryngoscope than when using it as an indirect videolaryngoscope, or when using the Macintosh laryngoscope. This was mirrored in the subjective user reporting of difficulty for each method. The authors conclude: We cannot recommend that the McGrath videolaryngoscope be used as a direct laryngscopic device in place of the Macintosh.

I total agree with the final sentence of the article; It’s time we started putting our patients care ahead of our ego. I believe in addition to ego we should add the words: ‘and ignorance’.