Background
Plastic single-use laryngoscope blades are inexpensive and carry a lower risk of infection compared with metal reusable blades, but their efficiency during rapid sequence induction remains a matter of debate. The authors therefore compared plastic and metal blades during rapid sequence induction in a prospective randomized trial.
Methods
Two hundred eighty-four adult patients undergoing general anesthesia requiring rapid sequence induction were randomly assigned on a weekly basis to either plastic single-use or reusable metal blades (cluster randomization). After induction, a 60-s period was allowed to complete intubation. In the case of failed intubation, a second attempt was performed using metal blade. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of failed intubations, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of complications (oxygen desaturation, lung aspiration, and oropharynx trauma).
Results
Both groups were similar in their main characteristics, including risk factors for difficult intubation. On the first attempt, the rate of failed intubation was significantly increased in plastic blade group (17 vs. 3%; P < 0.01). In metal blade group, 50% of failed intubations were still difficult after the second attempt. In plastic blade group, all initial failed intubations were successfully intubated using metal blade, with an improvement in Cormack and Lehane grade. There was a significant increase in the complication rate in plastic group (15 vs. 6%; P < 0.05).
Conclusions
In rapid sequence induction of anesthesia, the plastic laryngoscope blade is less efficient than a metal blade and thus should not be recommended for use in this clinical setting.
Re-usable and sheathed laryngoscope blades
