scholarly journals GlideScope® Versus C-MAC® Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rufinah Teo ◽  
Nornafiza Mian ◽  
Syarifah Noor Nazihah Sayed Masri ◽  
Siti Nidzwani Mohd Mahdi ◽  
Yeoh Chih Nie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Satisfaction Score ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Airway Complications ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Group 2

Background: The emergence of video laryngoscopy in the management of pediatric airways has been invaluable as it has been known that these patients are prone to airway complications. Video laryngoscopes are proven to improve glottic view in both normal and difficult airways in pediatric patients. The time taken to intubate using these devices is inconsistent. Objectives: This study was designed to compare the time to intubate using two common video laryngoscopes, C-MAC®, and GlideScope®, aimed at pediatric patients age 3 - 12 years old. Methods: A Randomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 ASA I or II patients, aged 3 - 12 years old who underwent elective surgery using endotracheal tube. They were divided into group 1 patients who were intubated using C-MAC® video laryngoscope versus group 2 patients who were intubated with GlideScope® video laryngoscope. Laryngoscopists were all anesthetists with experience in both C-MAC® and GlideScope® intubation. Time to intubate and intubation attempts were measured. Any extra maneuver, airway complications, and laryngoscopist satisfaction scores were also recorded. Results: Total time to intubate was significantly longer in GlideScope® group than in C-MAC® group (P < 0.001). Both devices managed to achieve excellent glottic views. The first pass attempt success rate was similar between both devices. There was no difference between requirement of extra maneuvers to assist intubations. There were also no adverse events associated with all the intubations. The satisfaction score of anesthetists was comparable to each other. Conclusions: Even though intubation time using GlideScope® is longer, both devices give excellent glottic view, comparable success intubation, and anesthetists satisfaction score.

scholarly journals Video Laryngoscopic Endotracheal Intubation in Cardiac Operation Theater - Experience at a Peripheral Tertiary Healthcare Centre of Bangladesh

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
Minhazur Rahman Chowdhury ◽  
Muhammad Abdul Quaium Chowdhury ◽  
Jitu Das Gupta ◽  
Subir Barua ◽  
Mohammad Abdul Mannan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Hemodynamic Response ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Glottic View

Background: Endotracheal intubation is an essential primary skill for all anesthesiologists. For cardiac anesthesiologists rapid and proper intubation is more important as failure may cause serious consequences. Video laryngoscope provides a better real time view of the larynx, epiglottis and vocal cords. It also keeps the intubating anesthetist away from the patient as compared to conventional laryngoscopy. This may be very important in this COVID-19 era. To the best of our knowledge the Department of Cardiac Surgery and Cardiac Anesthesia of Chattogram Medical College & Hospital is the first center in Bangladesh to introduce video laryngoscope in cardiac OT. The objective of this study was aimed to compare the intubation time, hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy, success rates and operator’s comfort using the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and video laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 adult patients were included in this comparative study, subjected to general anesthesia for cardiac surgery, intubated using either conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscope or video laryngoscope. Patients were intubated by 3 different consultant anesthesiologists with equal competency of our department. Results: There was not much difference between Video laryngoscopy and conventional laryngoscopy in terms of intubation time and success rate. Video laryngoscopy exhibited less hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation; however, the difference was not statistically significant in this small group of patients. Operators were much more comfortable with Video laryngoscope than conventional laryngoscope particularly with the cases of difficult intubation because of the better glottic view with the former. Conclusion: Video laryngoscope is preferred by cardiac anesthetists because of better glottic view. Bangladesh Heart Journal 2020; 35(1) : 47-53

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 A Prospective Randomized Equivalence Trial of the GlideScope Cobalt® Video Laryngoscope to Traditional Direct Laryngoscopy in Neonates and Infants

2012 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 622-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Fiadjoe ◽  
Harshad Gurnaney ◽  
Nicholas Dalesio ◽  
Emily Sussman ◽  
Huaqing Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Passage Time ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Glottic Opening ◽  
Equivalence Trial ◽  
Neonates And Infants ◽  
Normal Neonates

Background Intubation in children is increasingly performed using video laryngoscopes. Many pediatric studies examine novice laryngoscopists or describe single patient experiences. This prospective randomized nonblinded equivalence trial compares intubation time for the GlideScope Cobalt® video laryngoscope (GCV, Verathon Medical, Bothell, WA) with direct laryngoscopy with a Miller blade (DL, Heine, Dover, NH) in anatomically normal neonates and infants. The primary hypothesis was that intubation times with GCV would be noninferior to DL. Methods Sixty subjects presenting for elective surgery were randomly assigned to intubation using GCV or DL. Intubation time, time to best view, percentage of glottic opening score, and intubation success were documented. We defined an intubation time difference of less than 10 s as clinically insignificant. Results There was no difference in intubation time between the groups (GCV median = 22.6 s; DL median = 21.4 s; P = 0.24). The 95% one-sided CI for mean difference between the groups was less than 8.3 s. GCV yielded faster time to best view (median = 8.1 s; DL 9.9 s; P = 0.03). Endotracheal tube passage time was longer for GCV (median = 14.3 s; DL 8.5 s; P = 0.007). The percentage of glottic opening score was improved with GCV (median 100; DL 80; P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions Similar intubation times and success rates were achieved in anatomically normal neonates and infants with the GCV as with DL. The GCV yielded faster time to best view and better views but longer tube passage times than DL.

scholarly journals The midline approach for endotracheal intubation using GlideScope video laryngoscopy could provide better glottis exposure in adults： A randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lianxiang Jiang ◽  
Shulin Qiu ◽  
Peng Zhang ◽  
Weidong Yao ◽  
Yan Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Midline Approach ◽  
Approach Group

Abstract Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that the common laryngoscopic approach (right-sided) and midline approach are both used for endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy. Although the midline approach is commonly recommended for video laryngoscopy (VL) in the clinic, there is a lack of published evidences to support this practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different video laryngoscopic approaches on intubation. Methods: Two hundred sixty-two patients aged 18 years who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia and required endotracheal intubation were included in the present prospective, randomized, controlled study. The participants were randomly and equally allocated to the right approach (Group R) or midline approach (Group M). All the intubations were conducted by experienced anaesthetists using GlideScope video laryngoscopy. The primary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopic views (CLVs) and first-pass success (FPS) rates. The secondary outcomes were the time to glottis exposure, time to tracheal intubation, haemodynamic responses and other adverse events. Comparative analysis was performed between the groups. Results: Finally, 262 patients completed the study, and all the tracheas were successfully intubated. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics and airway assessments ( P >0.05). Compared with Group R, Group M had a better CLV ( χ2 =14.706, P =0.001) and shorter times to glottis exposure (8.82±2.04 vs 12.38±1.81; t =14.94; P <0.001) and tracheal intubation (37.19±5.01 vs 45.23±4.81; t =13.25; P <0.001), but no difference was found in the FPS rate (70.2% vs 71.8%; χ2 =0.074; P =0.446) and intubation procedure time (29.86±2.56 vs 30.46±2.97, t =1.75, P =0.081). Between the groups, the rates of hoarseness or sore throat, minor injury, hypoxemia and changes in SBP and HR showed no significant difference ( P >0.05). Conclusion: Although the FPS rate did not differ based on the laryngoscopic approach, the midline approach could provide better glottis exposure and shorter times to glottis exposure and intubation. The midline approach should be recommended for teaching in VL-assisted endotracheal intubation. Trial registration: The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR-RNC-1900023252 ).

scholarly journals Why USB-endoscope laryngoscopy is as effective as video laryngoscopy

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. E55-59
Author(s):  
Meliha Findik ◽  
Afsin E. Kayipmaz ◽  
Cemil Kavalci ◽  
Tugce Sencelikel Sencelikel ◽  
Murat Muratoglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Correct Placement ◽  
Custom Made ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a low-cost custom-made universal serial bus (USB) endoscope laryngoscope for intubation with a direct laryngoscope and a high-cost video laryngoscope in a mannequin study. Methods: We used one intubation simulator model (mannequin) in our study. A USB endoscope was mounted to the direct laryngoscope as a custom-made USB endoscope laryngoscope (USB-L). We used a video laryngoscope (Glidescope®, Verathon, USA) and a direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for comparison. Intubation time and the correct placement of the tube were measured. Intubations were performed by two operators and results were compared. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between the video and direct laryngoscope groups (p < 0.001), as well as between the USB-L and direct laryngoscope groups (p = 0.001) for Operator 1. For Operator 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the video laryngoscope group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.022); however, we did not find a significant difference between the USB-L group and the direct laryngoscope group (p = 0.154). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the USB-L and video laryngoscope groups for either operator (p=0.347 for Operator 1 and p>0.999 for Operator 2). Conclusion: Our study showed that USB endoscope laryngoscope provided similar intubation time to video laryngoscopy at a fraction of the cost; and both had superior times in comparison with direct laryngoscopy.

scholarly journals Usefulness of Airway Scope for Intubation of Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate–Comparison with Macintosh Laryngoscope: A randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoko Okumura ◽  
Masahiro Okuda ◽  
Aiji Sato (Boku) ◽  
Naoko Tachi ◽  
Mayumi Hashimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Mouth Opening ◽  
Head Tilt ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Airway Scope ◽  
Airway Complications ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Airway Scope (AWS) with its plastic blade does not require a head-tilt or separate laryngoscopy to guide intubations. Therefore, we hypothesized that its use would reduce the intubation time (IT) and the frequency of airway complication events when compared with the use of Macintosh Laryngoscope (ML) for infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Methods: The parents of all patients provided written consents; we enrolled 40 infants with CLP (ASA-PS 1). After inducing general anesthesia using sevoflurane and rocuronium, we performed orotracheal intubations using either AWS (n = 20) or ML (n = 20), randomly. We define the duration between manual manipulation using cross finger for maximum mouth opening and the first raising motion of the chest following intubation by artificial ventilation as “IT;” further, the measured IT as primary outcomes. Airway complications were considered secondary outcomes. Moreover, we looked for associations between IT and the patient’s characteristics: extensive clefts, age, height, and weight. We used the Mann–Whitney test and Fisher’s exact probability test for statistical analysis; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The mean IT was 31.5 ± 8.3 s in AWS group and 26.4 ± 8.9 seconds in ML group. Statistical significant difference was not found in IT between the two groups. The IT of AWS group was statistically related to extensive clefts. Airway complications were detected in ML group. Conclusion: AWS is useful for intubation of infants with CLP; it required IT similar to that required using ML, with a lower rate of airway complications. Trial Registration UMIN-CTR Registration number UMIN000024763 Registered 8 November 2016 Keywords: Airway Scope, Macintosh Laryngoscope, infant, intubation time

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness of the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope versus  Direct Laryngoscopy in the Setting of the Predicted Difficult Airway

2012 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 629-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Aziz ◽  
Dawn Dillman ◽  
Rongwei Fu ◽  
Ansgar M. Brambrink
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Difficult Intubation ◽  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Intubation Success ◽  
Intubation Success Rate

Background Video laryngoscopy may be useful in the setting of the difficult airway, but it remains unclear if intubation success is improved in routine difficult airway management. This study compared success rates for tracheal intubation with the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) with conventional direct laryngoscopy in patients with predicted difficult airway. Methods We conducted a two arm, single-blinded randomized controlled trial that involved 300 patients. Inclusion required at least one of four predictors of difficult intubation. The primary outcome was successful tracheal intubation on first attempt. Results The use of video laryngoscopy resulted in more successful intubations on first attempt (138/149; 93%) as compared with direct laryngoscopy (124/147; 84%), P = 0.026. Cormack-Lehane laryngeal view was graded I or II in 139/149 of C-MAC attempts versus 119/147 in direct laryngoscopy attempts (P &lt; 0.01). Laryngoscopy time averaged 46 s (95% CI, 40-51) for the C-MAC group and was shorter in the direct laryngoscopy group, 33 s (95% CI, 29-36), P &lt; 0.001. The use of a gum-elastic bougie and/or external laryngeal manipulation were required less often in the C-MAC intubations (24%, 33/138) compared with direct laryngoscopy (37%, 46/124, P = 0.020). The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the C-MAC (20%, 27/138) versus direct laryngoscopy (13%, 16/124, P = 0.146). Conclusion A diverse group of anesthesia providers achieved a higher intubation success rate on first attempt with the C-MAC in a broad range of patients with predictors of difficult intubation. C-MAC laryngoscopy seems to be a useful technique for the initial approach to a potentially difficult airway.

scholarly journals The midline approach for endotracheal intubation with GlideScope video laryngoscopy could provide a better glottis exposure in adults:A randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lianxiang Jiang ◽  
Shulin Qiu ◽  
Peng Zhang ◽  
Weidong Yao ◽  
Yan Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tracheal Intubation ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Midline Approach ◽  
Approach Group

Abstract Background: Previous studies demonstrated that the common laryngoscopic approach (right-sided) and midline approach are both used for endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy. Although a midline approach is commonly recommended for video laryngoscopy (VL) in clinical, lacking of published evidences to support it. The study aimed to evaluate the effects of different video laryngoscopic approach on intubation. Methods: Two hundred and sixty-two patients aged 18 years who underwent elective surgery in general anesthesia, requiring endotracheal intubation, were included in the prospective, randomized, controlled study. Participants were randomly and equally allocated to right approach (Group R) or midline approach (Group M). All intubations were conducted with GlideScope video laryngoscopy by experienced anaesthetists. The primary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopic views (CLV) and first-pass success (FPS) rate. The secondary outcomes were time to glottis exposure, time to tracheal intubation, hemodynamic response and other adverse events. Comparative analysis was performed between the both groups. Results: All patients ultimately were successfully intubated. No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics and airway assessments (P＞0.05). Compared with Group R, Group M had a better CLV (χ2=14.706, P=0.001) and shorter time to glottis exposure (8.82±2.04 vs 12.38±1.81, t=14.94, P<0.001) and tracheal intubation (37.19±5.01 vs 45.23±4.81, t=13.25, P<0.001), but no difference in FPS rate (70.2% vs 71.8%, χ2=0.074, P=0.446). Between groups, the rates of hoarseness or sore throat, minor injury, hypoxemiaand changes of SBP and HR were noted no significant difference (P＞0.05). Conclusion: Although FPS rate did not differ based upon laryngoscopic approach type; however, the midline approach could provide a better glottis exposure, shorter time to glottis exposure and intubation. The midline approach should be recommended for teaching in VL-assisted endotracheal intubation. Trial registration: The study was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-RNC-13003898). Keywords: endotracheal intubation; video laryngoscopic; laryngoscopic approach

scholarly journals Evaluation of the True View PCD Video Laryngoscope for Oral Endotracheal Intubation

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-61
Author(s):  
Neha Agrawal ◽  
Alks Shah ◽  
Balraj Joshi ◽  
Pinal Vasani
Keyword(s):  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Difficulty Score ◽  
Group 1

Background: Truview PCD video laryngoscope is particularly planned to assist in locating the endotracheal tube in addition to observe the admission of the tube into the glottis. The present study was performed to assess the outlook of glottic opening and relief of intubation between the Truview PCD laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients undergoes general anaesthesia. Subjects and Methods: Ninety patients of ASA grade 1 and 2 aged 18-60 years, posted for elective surgery under general anaesthesia needing endotracheal intubation were arbitrarily allocated into group 1 (Truview PCD laryngoscope n=45) and group 2 (Macintosh laryngoscope n=45). The two groups were compared for demographic data, intubation difficulty score, Cormack-Lehane grade, time to intubate, number of intubation attempts and hemodynamic parameters. Conclusion: Truview PCD can be measured as an alternate intubation device, especially in difficult intubation conditions.

scholarly journals Comparison of the McGrath video laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope in obstetric patients: A randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melike Korkmaz Toker ◽  
Basak Altıparmak ◽  
Ayse Gul Karabay
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Elective Cesarean Section ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
Lehane Grade

Objective: In obstetric patients’ airway, guidelines have recommended the availability of advanced airway equipment. Our aim was to compare the larynx visualization provided by the Macintosh direct laryngoscope and McGrath video laryngoscope and the intubation time of patients undergoing cesarean section. Methods: This study was conducted at a private obstetrics and gynecology hospital during one month between June and July 2018. A hundred patients scheduled for elective cesarean section under general anesthesia were randomized into two different group’s as intubated using either McGrath VL or Macintosh DL. The intubation times, Cormack–Lehane grade, percentage of glottic opening, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rates before and after intubation were compared among the groups. Results: The McGrath VL significantly reduced the intubation time compared to the Macintosh DL. In the McGrath VL group, better glottic view set the time of tracheal intubation as assessed using the Cormack-Lehane classification system and POGO scores were recorded. After intubation, hemodynamic parameters were significantly higher in the Macintosh DL group than in the McGrath VL group. Conclusion: The McGrath VL significantly lowered intubation time relative to the Macintosh DL, which may be a critical finding considering the importance of maintaining the mother’s airway for the health of both mother and baby. How to cite this:Toker MK, Altıparmak B, Karabay AG. Comparison of the McGrath video laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope in obstetric patients: A randomized controlled trial. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(2):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.2.646 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document