Comparison of the Airtraq laryngoscope and the GlideScope for double-lumen tube intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a prospective randomized trial

Abstract

BackgroundThe Airtraq laryngoscope and the GlideScope are commonly used in many airway scenarios. However, their features have not been fully described for double-lumen tube intubation. A prospective randomized study was designed to compare their intubation performances in thoracic surgery patients.MethodsSeventy ASA physical status I and II patients with predicted normal airway were scheduled for thoracic surgeries with double-lumen tube intubation. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups and intubated with either the Airtraq laryngoscope (group A, n = 35) or the GlideScope (group G, n = 35). Airway assessments were performed prior to anesthesia, and all patients were induced with a standard anesthetic regimen. The Cormack-Lehane grades were initially evaluated with a Macintosh laryngoscope and subsequently with the group-specific laryngoscope before intubation. Intubation time was recorded as the primary outcome. The Cormack-Lehane grade, the success of the first intubation attempt, the intubation difficulty scales and ease of tube advancement were noted. Hemodynamic variables during intubation and incidence of post-operative sore throat were documented as well.ResultsThe intubation time of group A was shorter than that of group G (36.6 ± 20.2 s vs. 54.6 ± 25.7 s, p = 0.002). The Cormack-Lehane grade (I/II/III/IV) was significantly better in group A (33/2/0/0 vs. 28/7/0/0, p = 0.042). The mean arterial pressure and heart rate rose to higher levels during intubation with the GlideScope than with the Airtraq laryngoscope. The success of the first intubation attempt and the intubation difficulty scales were comparable between the two groups. The numbers of patients who experienced postoperative sore throat were similar (6 vs. 8) in the two groups.ConclusionsCompared with the GlideScope, the specially designed Airtraq laryngoscope might be more suitable for double-lumen tube intubations in patients with predicted normal airway.Trial registrationwww.chictr.org Identifier: ChiCTR-TRC-11001628

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

“…Previous study [34] reported that the Airtraq had a shorter intubation time for DLT intubation than the Glidescope. In support, our study found that the Airtraq DL is superior to the McGrath Series 5 with regard to intubation time, although there were no differences in glottic exposure time between the 2 groups.…”

Different classes of videoscopes and direct laryngoscopes for double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

“…For blinding, given that different devices were used in almost all RCT studies, all studies (100%) were evaluated as high risk in blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention of the studies (performance bias). Eight studies (35%) that reported blinding of the outcome assessors were assessed as having unclear risk of bias [7,8,25,[27][28][29][30][31], and the other…”

“…Success rate of the first attempt intubation of DLT. Four groups of devices from 21 studies were available for the analysis [1,7,8,17,18,20,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39]. Eligible comparisons in the NMA are shown in Figs 3A and 4A.…”

Videolaryngoscopes for placement of double lumen tubes: Is it time to say goodbye to direct view?

“…We recruited 33 publications demonstrating the use of different VL for placement of DLT. [ 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ]…”

“…Recently, Yi et al . [ 28 ] have reported a shorter time to DLT intubation with the use of the Airtraq ® than with the GlideScope ® , despite the associated comparable success rate at the first attempt and difficult intubation score [ Table 3 ].…”