No abstract

Background: The experiences of seasoned practitioners with the new C-MAC indirect videolaryngoscope system have shown promising results in the management of difficult airways. However, a comparison of direct and indirect laryngoscopy utilizing the C-MAC system as its own control has not been performed in a cohort of anesthesiologists-in-training. The primary aim was to compare direct and indirect laryngoscopy in terms of intubation time with secondary outcomes including laryngoscopy time and airway view with the same size 3 blade. Methods: The study was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01104090). Oral and written informed consent was obtained from 50 adult patients with BMI < 40 kg/m 2 who required general anesthesia for elective surgery with tracheal tube placement. The patients were randomized to two groups, each receiving two laryngoscopies, n=25 direct-first and n=25 indirect-first. Results: All patients except for one were successfully intubated on the first attempt. The intubation time was 12.3±11.1 sec immediately following videolaryngoscopy (direct laryngoscopy first group) and 9.8±7.1 sec immediately following direct laryngoscopy (videolaryngoscopy first group), p=0.35. The first laryngoscopy time was 8.7±4.7 sec in the direct group and 13.3±10.7 sec in the indirect group, p=0.06. Twenty-percent of direct first cases compared to 0% of indirect first cases showed an improvement in airway view score by at least two classes on the second laryngoscopy, p=0.02. Backward-upward-rightward pressure was used in 36% of direct first and 12% of indirect first patients, p=0.047. Conclusions: This study corroborates previous results on the use of the C-MAC videolaryngoscopy system during endotracheal-assisted intubation. Although there was no difference in intubation time between direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy, the C-MAC system was found to improve laryngeal views and reduce the number of necessary laryngeal manipulations. A larger randomized study utilizing a similar model is necessary to definitively determine significant clinical results.

No abstract

Video laryngoscopes allow indirect visualization of the glottis and provide superior views of the glottis compared to direct laryngoscopes in patients with both normal and difficult airways, but it may be difficult to advance the endotracheal tube (ETT) through the vocal cords into the trachea, unless a stylet is used. We propose that the Endotrol(®) ETT may be an effective tool to facilitate video laryngoscope-assisted orotracheal intubation without the use of a stylet. After obtaining written and oral informed consent, 60-adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation were enrolled. Patients were randomized, respectively, to 1 of 4 groups: Group A(1), (15 patients): McGrath(®) with Endotrol(®) ETT; Group A(2), (15 patients): McGrath(®) with GlideRite(®)-styletted standard ETT; Group B(1), (15 patients): GlideScope(®) with Endotrol(®) ETT; Group B(2), (15 patients): GlideScope(®) with GlideRite(®)-styletted standard ETT. Statistical analysis was performed with Stata (Stata Corp v10, College Station). Mean time to intubation was longer in the Endotrol(®) groups compared to the GlideRite(®) groups: 60.1 (31.6) vs. 44.4 (27.6) s (p < 0.05). It was subjectively more difficult to intubate using the Endotrol(®) than with a GlideRite(®)-styletted ETT (difficulty score median [range] 2 [1-5] vs. 1 [1-3], respectively). Three intubations using the Endotrol(®) were characterized as difficult, whereas there were no difficult intubations with the GlideRite(®)stylet. The Endotrol(®) ETT, as compared to a standard ETT with a non-malleable stylet, is associated with longer intubation times and a subjective increase in difficulty of use. It may, however, still be a clinically viable alternative in video laryngoscope-assisted orotracheal intubation when use of a rigid stylet is undesirable.

No abstract