Search

Background: In resource-limited settings, advanced airway management tools like fiberoptic bronchoscopes are often unavailable, creating challenges for managing difficult airways. We present the case of a 25-year-old male with post-burn contractures of the face, neck, and thorax in Nigeria, who had been repeatedly denied surgery due to the high risk of airway management complications. This case highlights how an awake intubation was safely performed using an Airtraq ® laryngoscope, the only device available, as fiberoptic intubation was not an option. The patient had a mouth opening of 3.5 cm, a Mallampati score of 4, and no neck extension, making intubation challenging. Pre-procedural counseling was provided, and after explaining the risks, the patient gave informed consent., Case Presentation: Preoxygenation was performed, followed by topical anesthesia using lidocaine gargles and incremental spraying of lidocaine to the vocal cords via a feeding tube. The Airtraq ® laryngoscope enabled glottic visualization despite limited neck mobility and challenging anatomy. Procedural challenges included managing aspiration during gargling, precise lidocaine application without advanced tools, and maintaining patient cooperation. The procedure was successfully completed, allowing surgery for contracture release., Conclusions: This case emphasizes that safe awake intubation with an Airtraq ® laryngoscope is feasible in low-resource environments when key principles-oxygenation, topical anesthesia, and careful procedural steps-are followed. The reuse of a single-use device like the Airtraq ® laryngoscope extends its utility in resource-constrained settings, enabling complex airway management when alternatives are unavailable. The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported minimal discomfort. This experience underscores the critical importance of innovation, resourcefulness, and patient cooperation in managing difficult airways when standard tools are unavailable, offering valuable lessons for similar resource-constrained environments., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The patient provided informed consent for the procedure. Consent for publication: Written authorization form the patient was provided for submission of a case report. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)