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

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.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Efficacy of RAMA Mobile Video Laryngoscope (RAMA-mVL) Versus McGrath® for Tracheal Intubation in Manikin. A Randomized Study

Background: Video laryngoscope (VL) has increased the success rate of intubation but the commercial VL is unaffordable for community hospitals. Therefore, Ramathibodi mobile VL (RAMA-mVL) was invented to close the gap and expected that it would be equivalent to the current device and lower price.Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intubation, compare by using RAMA-mVL and McGrath®Methods: The randomized, single-blinded study of the success intubation between RAMA-mVL and McGrath® was conducted in a manikin. Medical personnel with intubation experiences was included and trained before performing the procedure. The success rate for one best shot of intubation, time to intubation, satisfaction, and value between both VL were recorded and analyzedResults: A total of 208 persons entered the research, 104 in each group. The success rate for intubation by using both VL is 100%. The mean of time to intubation using RAMA-mVL was significantly less than that of McGrath®, which were 9.12 (±4.28) and 11.19 (±5.04) seconds, respectively (95% CI 0.001 - 0.9, P = .002). The satisfaction with innovation that is easy to build between RAMA-mVL and McGrath® was 4.88 (±0.32) and 4.23 (±0.96) points (95% CI 0.46 - 0.85, P < .001). Additionally, the cost of RAMA-mVL was cheaper than McGrath®.Conclusions: RAMA-mVL performed equivalent and even better than McGrath® compared by intubation success rate, mean intubation time, satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness.

Efficacy and Safety of Video-Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The available meta-analyses have inconclusively indicated the advantages of video-laryngoscopy (VL) in different clinical situations; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine efficacy outcomes such as successful first attempt or time to perform endotracheal intubation as well as adverse events of VL vs. direct laryngoscopes (DL) for double-lumen intubation. First intubation attempt success rate was 87.9% for VL and 84.5% for DL (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.86; I2 = 61%; p = 0.08). Overall success rate was 99.8% for VL and 98.8% for DL, respectively (OR = 3.89; 95%CI: 0.95 to 15.93; I2 = 0; p = 0.06). Intubation time for VL was 43.4 ± 30.4 s compared to 54.0 ± 56.3 s for DL (MD = −11.87; 95%CI: −17.06 to −6.68; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grades 1 or 2 equaled 93.1% and 88.1% in the VL and DL groups, respectively (OR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.41; I2 = 63%; p = 0.02). External laryngeal manipulation was needed in 18.4% cases of VL compared with 42.8% for DL (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.40; I2 = 69%; p < 0.001). For double-lumen intubation, VL offers shorter intubation time, better glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grade, and a lower need for ELM, but comparable first intubation attempt success rate and overall intubation success rate compared with DL.

Comparison of Cricothyroid Membrane Puncture Anesthesia and Topical Anesthesia for Awake Fiberoptic Intubation: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is commonly used for patients with a difficult airway. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cricothyroid membrane puncture anesthesia and topical anesthesia during AFOI.Methods: A total of 70 patients (the American Society of Anesthesiologists score I-III) with anticipated difficult airways scheduled for nonemergency surgery with AFOI were randomly slated to receive cricothyroid membrane puncture anesthesia (n = 35) or topical anesthesia (n = 35). Each group received dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1.0 μg/kg and sufentanil at a dose of 0.2 μg/kg over 10 min for conscious sedation before intubation. The endoscopy intubation, post-intubation condition, and endoscopy tolerance as scored by the anesthetists were observed. The satisfaction of the operator regarding the procedure and the satisfaction of the patient 24 h after the surgery were also recorded. We recorded the success rate of the first intubation, intubation time, and hemodynamic changes during the procedure and also the adverse events.Results: Better intubation scores, operator satisfaction, and satisfaction of the patient were observed in the cricothyroid membrane puncture anesthesia group than in the topical anesthesia group (p &lt; 0.05). The intubation time in the cricothyroid membrane puncture anesthesia group was less than that in the topical anesthesia group (p &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences in the patient tolerance scores, the success rate of the first intubation, hemodynamic changes, and adverse events between both the groups.Conclusion: Compared with topical anesthesia, cricothyroid membrane puncture anesthesia provided better intubation conditions and less intubation time with greater satisfaction of the patient and operator during endoscopic intubation.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=42636, Identifier: ChiCTR 1900025820.

Comparison of a New Video Intubation Stylet and McGrath® MAC Video Laryngoscope for Intubation in an Airway Manikin with Normal Airway and Cervical Spine Immobilization Scenarios by Novice Personnel: A Randomized Crossover Study

The use of both a video laryngoscope and a video intubation stylet, compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope, is not only easier to learn but also associated with a higher success rate in performing endotracheal intubation for novice users. However, data comparing the two video devices used by novice personnel are rarely found in literature. Nondelayed intubation is an important condition to determine the prognosis in critically ill patients; hence, exploring intubation performance in various situations is of clinical significance. This study is aimed at comparing a video stylet and a video laryngoscope for intubation in an airway manikin with normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios by novice personnel. We compared the performance of intubation by novices between the Aram Video Stylet and the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope in an airway manikin. Thirty medical doctors with minimal experience of endotracheal intubation attempted intubation on a manikin five times with each device in each setting (normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios). The order of use of the devices in each scenario was randomized for each participant. In the normal airway scenario, the Aram stylet showed a significantly higher rate of successful intubation than the McGrath® (98.7% vs. 92.0%; odds ratio (95% CI): 6.4 (1.4–29.3); p = 0.006 ). The intubation time was shorter using the Aram Stylet than that using the McGrath® video laryngoscope ( p < 0.001 ). In the cervical immobilization scenario, successful endotracheal intubation was also more frequent using the Aram stylet than with the McGrath® (96.0% vs. 87.3%; odds ratio (95% CI): 3.5 (1.3–9.0); p = 0.007 ). The Aram Stylet intubation time was shorter ( p < 0.001 ). In novice personnel, endotracheal intubation appears to be more successful and faster using the Aram Video Stylet than the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope.

Optimal Timing of Simethicone Supplement for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Aims. Simethicone (SIM), as an antifoaming agent, has been shown to improve bowel preparation during colonoscopy. However, the optimal timing of SIM addition remained undetermined. We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of SIM addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve bowel preparation. Methods. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the SIM evening group (SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy) and the SIM morning group (SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy). The primary outcome was Bubble Scale (BS). The secondary outcomes were Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results. A total of 419 patients were enrolled in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of BS (8.76 ± 0.90 vs. 8.65 ± 1.16, P = 0.81), ADR (34.1% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.47), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (8.59 ± 0.94 vs. 8.45 ± 1.00, P = 0.15), and withdrawal time (8.22 ± 2.04 vs. 8.01 ± 2.51, P = 0.094) between the two groups. Moreover, safety and compliance were similar in both groups. However, the SIM evening group was associated with shorter cecal intubation time (3.80 ± 1.81 vs. 4.42 ± 2.03, P < 0.001), higher BS (2.95 ± 0.26 vs. 2.88 ± 0.38, P = 0.04) in the right colon, and diminutive ADR (62.5% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.022) in the right colon, when compared to the SIM evening group. Conclusions. The SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy can shorten cecal intubation time and improve BS scores and diminutive ADR of the right colon compared with the SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy in bowel preparation.

The effects of backward, upward, rightward pressure maneuver for intubation using the OptiscopeTM: a retrospective study

Background: The OptiscopeTM and the backward, upward, rightward pressure (BURP) maneuver are widely used in clinical practice because the BURP maneuver facilitates intubation by improving visualization of the larynx. However, the effect of the BURP maneuver is unclear when using the OptiscopeTM. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the effect of the BURP maneuver on intubation using the OptiscopeTM.Methods: Sixty-eight patients intubated with the OptiscopeTM were enrolled. We used the BURP maneuver in Group A (n = 33) and the conventional maneuver (which does not use the BURP maneuver) in Group B (n = 35). BURP application status was a binary variable representing whether the BURP maneuver was used during the intubation. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the effects of the BURP application status on intubation time controlling for body mass index, preoperative dental injury status, obstructive sleep apnea history, thyromental distance, sternomental distance (SMD), interincisor distance, history of neck rotation restriction, and Mallampati classification.Results: There was no difference in the intubation time between the two groups. According to the regression model (R2 = 0.308, P = 0.007), the BURP maneuver (Group A) decreased the intubation time by 6.089 seconds (95% confidence interval 1.303–10.875, P = 0.014) compared to Group B.Conclusion: The BURP maneuver reduced intubation time when using the OptiscopeTM.

Intubación orotraqueal por medio de fibrobroncoscopio flexible sin conductor vs guiada con máscara laríngea AuraGain en simuladores pediátricos: Ensayo clínico cross over

Antecedentes: La incidencia de intubación difícil en población pediátrica es de 2 a 11 casos por 1000 pacientes llevados a anestesia general, lo que conlleva riesgos potenciales como hipoxemia, parada cardíaca y muerte. Dentro de las estrategias para el manejo de la vía aérea difícil en los niños se encuentra el uso de fibroscopia flexible para guiar la intubación, que se puede combinar con un dispositivo supraglótico con la finalidad de facilitar su inserción, superar obstrucciones de la vía aérea superior y permitir una ventilación simultánea. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la intubación orotraqueal en simuladores pediátricos, utilizando fibrobroncoscopio flexible sin conductor versus el uso de la máscara laríngea AuraGain como conductor, con el fin de demostrar si el uso de dicho dispositivo supra glótico tiene alguna ventaja comparado con intubar sin conductor. Métodos: 41 anestesiólogos y residentes de anestesiología, fueron asignados al azar para realizar una intubación orotraqueal en un simulador pediátrico, utilizando fibrobroncoscopio flexible sin conductor o utilizando como guía la máscara laríngea AuraGain. Resultados: La intubación exitosa en el primer intento se consiguió en 38 de 41 intubaciones en el grupo de fibrobroncoscopia sin conductor y en 32 de 41 intubaciones en el grupo de fibrobroncoscopia con AuraGain, sin encontrar diferencias estadísticamente significativas. El grupo de fibrobroncoscopia sin conductor tuvo una mediana de tiempo de intubación significativamente más corta (41 segundos), comparado con el grupo de fibrobroncoscopia y AuraGain (67.5 segundos). Conclusiones: Usar el dispositivo AuraGain como conductor para intubar simuladores pediátricos con fibra óptica no mejora la intubación al primer intento, la intubación global, ni la visualización glótica, comparado con intubar solo con fibra óptica. Usar AuraGain aumenta los tiempos de intubación, sin embargo, dichos hallazgos deben ser confirmados en estudios con humanos. Background: The incidence of difficult intubation in pediatric population is 2 to 11 cases per 1000 patients brought to general anesthesia, which carries potential risks such as hypoxemia, cardiac arrest and death. Among the strategies for the management of difficult airway in children is the use of flexible fiberscopy to guide intubation, which can be combined with a supraglottic device in order to facilitate its insertion, overcome upper airway obstructions and allow simultaneous ventilation. The aim of this study was to compare orotracheal intubation in pediatric simulators, using a flexible fibrobronchoscope without driver versus using the AuraGain laryngeal mask as a driver, in order to demonstrate whether the use of such a supraglottic device has any advantage compared to intubating without a driver. Methods: 41 anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to perform orotracheal intubation in a pediatric simulator using either a flexible fibrobronchoscope without a driver or the AuraGain laryngeal mask as a guide. Results: Successful intubation on the first attempt was achieved in 38 of 41 intubations in the driverless fibrobronchoscopy group and in 32 of 41 intubations in the fibrobronchoscopy with AuraGain group, with no statistically significant differences. The driverless fibrobronchoscopy group had a significantly shorter median intubation time (41 seconds) compared to the fibrobronchoscopy and AuraGain group (67.5 seconds). Conclusions: Using the AuraGain device as a driver to intubate pediatric simulators with fiberoptics does not improve first-attempt intubation, overall intubation, or glottic visualization compared with intubating with fiberoptics alone. Using AuraGain increases intubation times, however, such findings need to be confirmed in human studies.

Comparative Study Between Dexmedetomidine and Fentanyl as Sedatives in Awake Fiberoptic Intubation in Cervical Spine Surgeries

Background Various drugs are used for providing favorable intubation conditions during awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). However, most of them have various side effects. Aim The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomedine and fentanyl as regards sedative effects, hemodynamic stability, intubation time and intubation attempts success during awake fiberoptic intubation. Material and Methods A randomized double-blind prospective study was conducted on a total of 40 patients scheduled for elective cervical spine surgeries who were randomly allocated into two equal groups (n 20): (group A) patients received a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine of 1 mcg/kg over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at 0.5 mcg/kg/h. and fentanyl group (group B) received dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/hr. Sedation score (Ramsy sedation score), hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, intubation time and intubation attempts were noted and compared between the two groups. Results Ramsy Sedation Score was significantly favorable (P &lt; 0.001) in group A in comparison to group B, moreover better hemodynamic stability during intubation (P &lt; 0.05) and less intubation attempts were observed in group A in comparison to group B. Conclusion The results of our study showed that dexmedetomidine provides optimum sedation without compromising airway or hemodynamic stability and with favorable intubation time and less intubation attempts during AFOI in comparison to fentanyl.