Comparison of Airway Management Devices Laryngeal Mask Airway versus Endotracheal Tube during Respiratory Emergencies and Their Outcome

Purpose: To compare the airway management devices, the laryngeal mask airway versus the endotracheal tube, during respiratory emergencies and their outcome.Objective: To compare the efficacy of LMA and ETT in maintaining airway patency during respiratory emergencies, assess complication rates, and evaluate patient outcomes.Methods: A six-month cross-sectional study was conducted at Maqsood Medical Complex Hospital, Peshawar, involving 150 adult patients requiring airway management.Data on demographics, device type, insertion attempts, complications, and clinician satisfaction were collected via structured questionnaires.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27 with chi-square tests.Results: Of 150 patients, 55.3% were male, mostly aged 33-50 years.LMA and ETT were used in 50.7% and 49.3% of cases, respectively, with choice influenced by operator preference (46.7%) and device availability (42.7%).First-attempt success was 81.3%, though 26.0% encountered anatomical insertion difficulties.Adequate oxygenation and ventilation were achieved in 72.7%.Complications occurred in 31.3%, primarily hypoxia (16.0%) and aspiration (6.7%).Device replacement was required in 26.0% of cases.The type of device used was significantly associated with complication rates (χ² = 32.618,p < 0.001).Survival to discharge was 97.3%, and 71.4% of clinicians reported satisfaction with outcomes.Conclusion: Both LMA and ETT were effective for airway management, though each had distinct complication profiles.Operator expertise, appropriate device selection, and continuous training are essential to improve patient safety in respiratory emergencies.