Abstract
BackgroundVideolaryngoscopy has become increasingly attractive for the routine management of the difficult airway. Glidescope® is well studied in the literature while imago V-Blade® is a recent videolaryngoscope. This is a feasibility study with 1:1 case-control sequential allocation comparing Imago V-Blade ® and Glidescope® in predicted difficult airway settings.MethodsTwo senior anesthesiologists with no clinical experience in video assisted intubation but previously trained in a simulated scenario, performed the endotracheal intubations with Imago V-Blade® and Glidescope®. A third experienced anesthesiologist supervised the procedures. Forty-two patients, 21 for each group, with the presence of predicted difficult airway according to the Italian guideline were included. The primary end point is the feasibility of intubation. The secondary end-points are the success to intubate in the first attempt, the intubation time, the Cormack and Lehane score view, the comparison of the intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score and the need for maneuvers to aid the endotracheal intubation comparing Imago V-Blade® and Glidescope®.ResultsThe intubation was achieved in 100% of cases in both groups. No differences were found in the first-attempt success rate (p = 0.383), intubation time (p = 0.280), Cormack and Lehane score view (p = 0.799) and IDS score (p = 0.252). Statistical differences were found in external laryngeal pressure (p = 0.005), advancement of the blade (p = 0.024) and use of increasing lifting force (p = 0.048).ConclusionsThis feasibility study showed that the intubation with the newly introduced Imago V-Blade® is feasible. Further randomized and/or non-inferiority trials are needed to evaluate the benefit of Imago V-Blade® in this procedure.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02897518. Retrospectively registered 25 August 2016
Highlights
Videolaryngoscopy has become increasingly attractive for the routine management of the difficult airway
The secondary end-points are the success to intubate in the first attempt, the intubation time, the Cormack and Lehane score view, the comparison of the intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score and the need for maneuvers to aid the endotracheal intubation comparing Imago VBlade ® and Glidescope®
In group G, 2/21 patients were intubated on the second third attempt of endotracheal intubation
Summary
Videolaryngoscopy has become increasingly attractive for the routine management of the difficult airway. Glidescope® is well studied in the literature while imago V-Blade® is a recent videolaryngoscope This is a feasibility study with 1:1 case-control sequential allocation comparing Imago V-Blade ® and Glidescope® in predicted difficult airway settings. The. The Imago V-Blade® (Fig. 1) is a recent videolaryngoscope equipped with a wireless video-assisted stylet within it’s 90° angled blade. The Imago V-Blade® (Fig. 1) is a recent videolaryngoscope equipped with a wireless video-assisted stylet within it’s 90° angled blade Both the Glidescope® and Imago V-Blade® have a digital camera at the tip of the blade extending the view angle beyond that of a standard Macintosh laryngoscope. The Imago V-Blade® has a channel for the tracheal tube to be preloaded before the Vargas et al BMC Anesthesiology (2017) 17:25 were consecutively screened for the presence of predicted difficult airway according Italian guideline [3]. The case group received endotracheal intubation with the Imago V-Blade® and the control group underwent tracheal intubation with the Glidescope®
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
