scholarly journals A Comparison of the GlideScope® with the Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation in Patients with Simulated Difficult Airway

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Lim ◽  
S. W. Yeo
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Laryngeal View ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Primary Hypothesis ◽  
Written Informed Consent

We compared the use of the GlideScope® and the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway. The primary hypothesis was that time to intubation would be shorter using the GlideScope® than using the Macintosh laryngoscope. After obtaining approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent, we recruited 60 ASA 1 and 2 patients to our randomized controlled trial. Group G (n=30) had tracheal intubation performed using the GlideScope® and Group M (n=30) were intubated using a Macintosh laryngoscope. We simulated a difficult airway in each patient by having an experienced assistant provide in-line manual stabilization of the head and neck. We recorded the best laryngeal view; difficulty of the tracheal intubation; time taken for successful tracheal intubation; manoeuvre needed to aid tracheal intubation and complications associated with the tracheal intubation. The median Cormack and Lehane grade was significantly better in Group G than Group M. Group G had a significantly shorter intubation time than group M (mean 41.8s±SD 20.2 vs mean 56.2s±26.6, P<0.05). The GlideScope® improved the laryngeal view and decreased time for tracheal intubation time when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with simulated difficult airway. The GlideScope® may be a good alternative for managing the difficult airway but clinical trials evaluating its use on patients with an actual difficult airway are needed.

scholarly journals Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Children with Torticollis: Randomized Controlled Trial

Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1171
Author(s):  
Min Hur ◽  
Jong Yeop Kim ◽  
Sang Kee Min ◽  
Kyuheok Lee ◽  
Young Ju Won ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Orotracheal Intubation ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Intubation Difficulty ◽  
Lifting Force ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Difficulty Scale

We investigated the efficacy of the McGrath videolaryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope in children with torticollis. Thirty children aged 1–10 years who underwent surgical release of torticollis were randomly assigned into the McGrath and Macintosh groups. Orotracheal intubation was performed by a skilled anesthesiologist. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The Cormack–Lehane grade, lifting force, intubation difficulty scale (IDS), difficulty level, and intubation failure rate were also assessed. The intubation time was significantly longer in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (31.4 ± 6.7 s vs. 26.1 ± 5.4 s, p = 0.025). Additionally, the Cormack–Lehane grades were comparable between the groups (p = 0.101). The lifting force and IDS were significantly lower in the McGrath group than in the Macintosh group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively). No significant differences were observed with respect to endotracheal intubation difficulty and intubation success rate. Intubation-related complications were also not observed. In conclusion, compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the McGrath videolaryngoscope extended the intubation time and did not improve glottic visualization in children with torticollis, despite having a lesser lifting force, lower intubation difficulty scale, and similar success rate.

Macintosh laryngoscope, i-view™, and C-MAC® video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box: A randomized, crossover, manikin study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Nakanishi ◽  
Yoshiki Sento ◽  
Yuji Kamimura ◽  
Kazuya Sobue
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Difficulty Scale

Abstract Background: The aerosol box was designed to prevent cough droplets from spreading, but it can impede tracheal intubation. We tested the hypothesis that the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (C-MAC) with an external display is more useful than the i-view™ video laryngoscope (i-view) with an integrated display, or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box.Methods: This prospective, randomized, crossover simulation study was conducted at an operating room of the two hospitals (a university hospital and a tertiary teaching hospital). We recruited 37 medical personnel (36 anesthesiologists and 1 dental anesthesiologist) who were working in the fields of anesthesia and intensive care with > 2 years of dedicated anesthesia experience from five hospitals. We divided the participants into six groups to use the laryngoscope in a determined order. After the training using each laryngoscope without a box, the participants performed tracheal intubation thrice with each laryngoscope with at least two-hour intervals. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The secondary outcomes were the success rate, Cormack-Lehane grade, and subjective difficulty scale score (numeric rating scale 0–10, 0: no difficulty, 10: highest difficulty). We used the Friedman test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni adjustment. Data are shown as median [interquartile range].Results: Thirty-seven personnel (11 women and 26 men) with 12 [5–19] (median [interquartile range]) years of anesthesia and intensive care experience were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the intubation time: 30 [26–32] s for Macintosh, 29 [26–32] s for i-view, and 29 [25–31] s for C-MAC (P=0.247). The success rate was 95%–100% without significant difference (P=0.135). The i-view and C-MAC video laryngoscopes exhibited superior Cormack-Lehane grades and lower subjective difficulty scale scores than the Macintosh laryngoscope; however, there were no differences between the i-view and C-MAC video laryngoscopes.Conclusions: Rapid and highly successful tracheal intubation was possible with Macintosh laryngoscope, i-view, and C-MAC video laryngoscopes on a manikin with an aerosol box. Improved Cormack-Lehane grade and ease of procedure may support the use of video laryngoscopes.Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, identifier UMIN000040269.

scholarly journals Macintosh laryngoscope and i-view™ and C-MAC® video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box: a randomized crossover manikin study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Nakanishi ◽  
Yoshiki Sento ◽  
Yuji Kamimura ◽  
Kazuya Sobue
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Manikin Study ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Difficulty Scale

Abstract Background We tested the hypothesis that the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (C-MAC) with an external display is more useful than the disposable i-view™ video laryngoscope (i-view) with an integrated display or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box. Methods In this randomized, crossover manikin study, we recruited 37 medical personnel with > 2 years of dedicated anesthesia experience from five hospitals. After the three successful intubations within 60 s using each laryngoscope without a box, the participants performed tracheal intubation thrice with each laryngoscope with at least 2-h intervals in a determined order. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The secondary outcomes were success rate, Cormack-Lehane grade, and subjective difficulty scale score. Results Thirty-seven personnel (11 women and 26 men) with 12 [5–19] (median [interquartile range]) years of anesthesia and intensive care experience were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the intubation time: 30 [26–32] s for Macintosh, 29 [26–32] s for i-view, and 29 [25–31] s for C-MAC (P = 0.247). The success rate was 95–100%, without a significant difference (P = 0.135). The i-view and C-MAC exhibited superior Cormack-Lehane grades and lower subjective difficulty scale scores than the Macintosh; however, there were no differences between the i-view and C-MAC. Conclusions Rapid and highly successful tracheal intubation was possible with both Macintosh, i-view, and C-MAC on a normal airway manikin in an aerosol box. Improved Cormack-Lehane grade and the ease of performing the procedure may support the use of video laryngoscopes. Trial registration UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000040269. Registered 30 April 2020.

scholarly journals McGrath Video Laryngoscope May Take a Longer Intubation Time Than Macintosh Laryngoscope

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Prerana N. Shah ◽  
Kaveri Das
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Laryngoscopic View ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
Grade Iii

Background. Video laryngoscopes provide better view and can improve ease of intubation compared with standard laryngoscopes. Methods. A prospective randomized study was done on 60 patients, 18 to 65 years old, comparing McGrath video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope. The aim was to compare the ease, efficacy, and usability of them during routine airway management. The primary endpoint was duration of intubation and the secondary endpoints were Cormack and Lehane grade of laryngoscopic view, number of intubation attempts, and incidence of complications. Results. There was an increase in total duration of intubation with McGrath video laryngoscope with 42.9 ± 19.5 seconds compared to Macintosh laryngoscope with 17.9 ± 4.6 seconds. In Macintosh group, 73.3% had grade I, 20% had grade II, and 6.7% had grade III Cormack Lehane view, while in McGrath group, 83.3% had grade I, 13.3% had grade II, and 3.3% had grade III. In McGrath group, 6 patients (20%) required more than 120 seconds to get intubated and only 73.3% were intubated in 1 attempt, while patients in Macintosh group had 100% successful intubation in 1 attempt. Pharyngeal trauma was seen with McGrath videolaryngoscopy. Conclusion. Duration of laryngoscopy, intubation, and total duration of intubation were significantly higher in McGrath group than in Macintosh group. McGrath group required a higher number of intubation attempts.

scholarly journals Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 322-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrie-Marie Russell ◽  
Anil Hormis ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
First Line ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Glidescope Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Difficult Airways

The purpose of this study was to review literature that looked into the efficacy of the Glidescope video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope in oral endotracheal intubations. We aimed to answer the question ‘Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope laryngoscopes be used as first line intubation aids or only in the difficult airway?’ A systematic search of electronic databases was made. The inclusion criteria included: Glidescope, video laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in human studies. The study aimed to compare first attempt success rate, glottic view and intubation time in papers dating between 2009 and 2017. Eleven trials with a total of 7,919 patients with both difficult and normal airways were included. The trials showed an improvement in first attempt success rate and glottic view with the Glidescope video laryngoscope especially in those with difficult airways. Overall time to intubate showed no significant differences between the Glidescope video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope although it was identified that with increased training and experience with the Glidescope video laryngoscope, intubation time was reduced. Glidescope video laryngoscopes show advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscopes in obtaining better glottic views in those with difficult airways. However its use is not supported in all routine intubations.

scholarly journals Comparison of Direct and Indirect Laryngoscopes in Vomitus and Hematemesis Settings: A Randomized Simulation Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryosuke Mihara ◽  
Nobuyasu Komasawa ◽  
Sayuri Matsunami ◽  
Toshiaki Minami
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Mcgrath Mac ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intubation Success ◽  
Intubation Success Rate

Background.Videolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of hematemesis or vomitus. We compared the utility of the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) and McGRATH MAC (McGRATH), which are videolaryngoscopes, in simulated hematemesis and vomitus settings.Methods.Seventeen anesthesiologists with more than 1 year of experience performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH under normal, hematemesis, and vomitus simulations.Results.In the normal setting, the intubation success rate was 100% for all three laryngoscopes. In the hematemesis settings, the intubation success rate differed significantly among the three laryngoscopes (P=0.021). In the vomitus settings, all participants succeeded in tracheal intubation with McL or McGRATH, while five failed in the AWS trial with significant difference (P=0.003). The intubation time did not significantly differ in normal settings, while it was significantly longer in the AWS trial compared to McL or McGRATH trial in the hematemesis or vomitus settings (P<0.001, compared to McL or McGRATH in both settings).Conclusion.The performance of McGRATH and McL can be superior to that of AWS for tracheal intubation in vomitus and hematemesis settings in adults.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Laryngeal View during Tracheal Intubation Using Airtraq and Macintosh Laryngoscopes by Unskillful Anesthesiology Residents: A Clinical Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Ferrando ◽  
Gerardo Aguilar ◽  
F. Javier Belda
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intubation Attempt ◽  
Laryngeal View ◽  
Other Hand

Background and Objective. The Airtraq laryngoscope (Prodol Meditec, Vizcaya, Spain) is a novel tracheal intubation device. Studies, performed until now, have compared the Airtraq with the Macintosh laryngoscope, concluding that it reduces the intubation times and increase the success rate at first intubation attempt, decreasing the Cormack-Lehane score. The aim of the study was to evaluate if, in unskillful anesthesiology residents during the laryngoscopy, the Airtraq compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope improves the laryngeal view, decreasing the Cormack-Lehane score.Methods. A prospective, randomized, crossed-over trial was carried out on 60 patients. Each one of the patients were intubated using both devices by unskillful (less than two hundred intubations with the Macintosh laryngoscope and 10 intubations using the Airtraq) anesthesiology residents. The Cormack-Lehane score, the success rate at first intubation attempt, and the laryngoscopy and intubation times were compared.Results. The Airtraq significantly decreased the Cormack-Lehane score (). On the other hand, there were no differences in times of laryngoscopy (; IC 95% 3.1, +4.8) and intubation (; C95%  −6.1, +10.0) between the two devices. No relevant complications were found during the maneuvers of intubation using both devices.Conclusions. The Airtraq is a useful laryngoscope in unskillful anesthesiology residents improving the laryngeal view and, therefore, facilitating the tracheal intubation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document