No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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.