Abstract
BackgroundKing Vision and McGrath MAC video laryngoscopes (VLs) are increasingly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations using non-channeled King Vision VL, McGrath MAC VL or Macintosh laryngoscope by experienced intubators.MethodsNinety nine ASA I or II adult patients, scheduled for oral maxillofacial surgeries with El-Ganzouri risk index 1–7 were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to intubate with one of three laryngoscopes (non-channeled King Vision, McGrath MAC and Macintosh). The intubators were experienced with more than 100 successful nasotracheal intubations using each device. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included first success rate, time required for viewing the glottis, Cormack-Lehane grade of glottis view, the number of assist maneuvers, hemodynamic responses, the subjective evaluating of sensations of performances and associated complications.ResultsThe intubation time of King Vision and McGrath group was comparable (37.6 ± 7.3 s vs. 35.4 ± 8.8 s) and both were shorter than Macintosh group (46.8 ± 10.4 s, p < 0.001). Both King Vision and McGrath groups had a 100% first attempt success rate, significantly higher than Macintosh group (85%, p < 0.05). The laryngoscopy time was comparable between King Vision and McGrath group (16.7 ± 5.5 s vs. 15.6 ± 6.3 s) and was shorter than Macintosh group (22.8 ± 7.2 s, p < 0.05) also. Compared with Macintosh laryngoscope, Glottis view was obviously improved when exposed with either non-channeled King Vision or McGrath MAC VL (p < 0.001), and assist maneuvers required were reduced (p < 0.001). The maximum fluctuations of MAP were significantly attenuated in VL groups (47.7 ± 12.5 mmHg and 45.1 ± 10.3 mmHg vs. 54.9 ± 10.2 mmHg, p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). Most device insertions were graded as excellent in McGrath group, followed by Macintosh and King Vision group (p = 0.0014). The tube advancements were easier in VLs compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). Sore throat was found more frequent in Macintosh group compared with King Vision group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsNon-channeled King Vision and McGrath MAC VLs were comparable and both devices facilitated nasotracheal intubation in managing predicted difficult intubations compared with Macintosh laryngoscope.Trial registrationClinicalTrials registration number NCT03126344. Registered on April 24, 2017.
Highlights
The video laryngoscope (VL) has been well established as an approach in airway management for patients with difficult direct laryngoscopy [1,2,3,4,5]
It has a channel integrated to the blade to facilitate tube guidance into the trachea though, channeled King Vision VL required longer time and provided lower success rates on first attempt for oral intubation in normal airway compared to McGrath MAC VL [13]
The distribution of the patient characteristics and difficult intubation predictors were well balanced between three groups (Table 1)
Summary
The video laryngoscope (VL) has been well established as an approach in airway management for patients with difficult direct laryngoscopy [1,2,3,4,5]. The McGrath MAC VL (Fig. 1a) (Aircraft Medical, Edinburgh, UK) has been widely used It has a battery powered handle, on the top of which is an adjustable liquid crystal display monitor. It was reported to facilitate routine NTIs in normal patients compared with Macintosh laryngoscope [11, 12]. It has a channel integrated to the blade to facilitate tube guidance into the trachea though, channeled King Vision VL required longer time and provided lower success rates on first attempt for oral intubation in normal airway compared to McGrath MAC VL [13]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations using non-channeled King Vision VL, McGrath MAC VL or Macintosh laryngoscope by experienced intubators
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
