This study aimed to compare Miller and Macintosh laryngoscopes in zero to 4-year-old children. A total of 72 children with a score of I and II, according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, who were candidates for elective surgery with general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were enrolled in the study. The children were divided into two equal groups (36 persons) according to used laryngoscope: Miller laryngoscope (group 1) and Macintosh laryngoscope (group 2). Observations and all laryngoscopies were performed by a single experienced anesthesiologist. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, non-invasive arterial blood pressure, and hemoglobin saturation were measured and recorded. The number of endotracheal intubation attempts and complications were also recorded for both groups. In terms of gender, the first group consisted of 88.9% boys and 11.1% girls, and the second group consisted of 66.6% boys and 33.3% girls (p-value=0.05). The mean age was 16.7 months in the first group and 17.7 months in the second group (p-value=0.5). The mean weight of the children was 16988.5 g and 16300 g in the Miller and Macintosh groups, respectively (p-value=0.9). Regarding the Cormack-Lehane classification system, 5 patients were classified as grade 1 (13.9%), 14 patients as grade 2 (38.9%), 15 patients as grade 3 (41.7%), and 2 patients as grade 4 (5.6%) in the Macintosh group. In contrast, in the Miller group, 5 patients were classified as grade 1 (13.9%), 27 patients as grade 2 (75%), and 4 patients as grade 3 (11.1%) (p-value=0.004). These results can provide more data about the tracheal intubation method with the Macintosh and Miller laryngoscopes, the ease of intubation, and the best laryngoscopic view with each blade.

Introduction: Airway surgery and endoscopy in pediatric patients are always associated with challenges in anesthesia management. Deep anesthesia is required for preventing patient bucking during the procedure but patient breath should be maintained; in this regard, a combination of general and topical anesthesia can be beneficial. There is also evidence of the peripheral effects of opioids. The main objective of this study is to compare using lidocaine topically alone and combined with alfentanil opioids with respect to the central effects of opioids. Methods: In this study, 40 ASA class I and II children, aged 1–6 years, who were candidates for flexible diagnostic bronchoscopy were divided into two groups through block randomization using the random number table after obtaining parents' consent in complete health conditions. In this clinical trial, for collecting the data a special data collection form was used at the bedside of patients undergoing bronchoscopy at Pediatric Medical Center in 2017. Data including demographic information (age, weight, gender), duration of anesthesia, blood pressure before and after drug administration, duration of bronchoscopy, and recovery time were recorded in a form. Findings: In terms of demographic variables, there were not any significant differences between the two studied groups, indicating that the groups were matched and randomized appropriately. Although there were not any significant differences between the two groups of using lidocaine alone and in combination with alfentanil in other variables, in the recovery time a significant difference was observed between the two groups, with a mean of 13.05 min in the lidocaine group and 18.75 min in the lidocaine combined with alfentanil group. Conclusion: Topical administration of opioid with lidocaine through bronchoscopy had no impact on blood pressure, heart rate, anesthesia duration, and the frequency of perioperative complications.