Comparative evaluation of C-MAC and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopes with Macintosh direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries.

Abstract

Videolaryngoscopes have an undisputed role in difficult airway management, but their role in routine intubation scenarios remains underappreciated. McGrath MAC is a lightweight laryngoscope with a disposable blade. It remains to be proven if it performs as efficiently as the reusable videolaryngoscopes like C-MAC and whether it has an advantage over standard Macintosh laryngoscope in predicted normal airways. We recruited 180 adult patients and randomly divided them into three groups for intubation with either Macintosh laryngoscope (Group-A), C-MAC (Group-B), and McGrath (Group-C). The primary objective was to compare the first attempt success rate. Secondary objectives included Cormack-Lehane (CL) grades, laryngoscopy time, intubation time, ease of intubation, need for optimization manoeuver, and the number of passes to place the endotracheal tube. The two videolaryngoscopes provided a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (P = 0.027). The CL grade-I was 100% in group B, 41.7% in group-A and 90% in group-C (B vs C; P = 0.037). Laryngoscopy time was 9.9 ± 2.5 s, 12.6 ± 0.8 s, and 13.1 ± 0.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (B vs C; P = 0.001). Intubation time was 24.4 ± 12 s, 28.3 ± 1.9 s, and 37.3 ± 5.8 s for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P < 0.0001). The number of tube passes was highest in group C. Videolaryngoscopes provided a superior glottic view and resulted in a superior first attempt success rate as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. When comparing the two videolaryngoscopes, C-MAC resulted in better intubation characteristics (shorter intubation time, better glottic views, and higher first-attempt success rates) and should be preferred over McGrath for intubation in adult patients with normal airways.