Summary Management of the difficult airway is one of the major challenges that anaesthetists face. The flexible fibreoptic scope is widely available but its use requires a level of skill, training and continued practice that is not universally found in all anaesthetists, particularly trainees. The Seeing Optical Stylet is a new, semirigid fibreoptic stylet ‘scope. We compared the Seeing Optical Stylet with a gum elastic bougie in a simulated Cormack and Lehane Grade 3 laryngoscopy in a manikin. Forty‐four anaesthetists were timed while intubating the manikin's trachea with both devices. The mean (SD) time taken with the Seeing Optical Stylet was 20.8 (9.3) s and with the bougie 30 (19.8) s (p = 0.001). Oesophageal intubation occurred six times with the bougie but did not occur with the Seeing Optical Stylet (p = 0.011). We conclude that the Seeing Optical Stylet may be superior to the bougie in difficult tracheal intubation. We feel that the results of this manikin trial are sufficiently encouraging to proceed to a clinical trial in patients.

In a randomised cross-over study, 72 anaesthetists (24 Senior House Officers, 24 Specialist Registrars and 24 Consultants) attempted to place a fibreoptic scope in the trachea of a manikin using three airway conduits: the Berman airway, the LMA Classic(trade mark) and the intubating laryngeal mask airway. The time for insertion of the airway conduit, delivery of two breaths and fibreoptic scope placement in the trachea was the primary endpoint. These overall times were significantly shorter (median [interquartile range]) using the LMA Classic (36 [28-45]) than via the intubating laryngeal mask (54 [42-79]) and the Berman airway (45 [33-80]), p < 0.0001. Senior House Officers were significantly slower than both Specialist Registrars and Consultants (p < 0.0001). The LMA Classic was considered to be the easiest conduit to use for fibreoptic scope placement by all grades of anaesthetists. We conclude that the LMA Classic is the most effective conduit for fibreoptic scope placement especially for anaesthetists with limited experience in its use.

The pre-operative anaesthetic records of 195 patients were analysed for the presence of 12 agreed core items of pre-operative assessment. This study showed that anaesthetists recorded 26.8 per cent of this information. In up to one-third of patients the following were recorded: smoking history, family history, gastro-oesophageal reflux, airway assessment, dental assessment, chest examination, heart-sounds and blood pressure. Previous anaesthesia, drug history and allergies were recorded in one to two-thirds of patients. Past medical history was recorded in over two-thirds of patients. With a view to improving the level of record-keeping, a formatted, pre-printed pre-operative assessment record was introduced into practice and two months later the audit was repeated. A small but non-significant improvement in record keeping was observed. An argument is made for the introduction of an interdisciplinary, unified anaesthetic pre-operative record.

No abstract