Comparing Video Laryngoscopy and Macintosh Laryngoscopy for Intubation

Abstract

The recent article of Tabrizi et al 1 Tabrizi R. Dahi M. Moshari M.R. et al. Video laryngoscopy or Macintosh laryngoscopy: Which one is more successful in patients with bilateral mandibular fractures?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 1864 Scopus (3) Google Scholar comparing the performance of video laryngoscopy (VL) and Macintosh laryngoscopy (ML) for orotracheal intubation in patients with bilateral mandibular fractures was of great interest. They showed that the use of VL increased the first-attempt intubation success rate but resulted in a longer time of intubation compared with ML. Other than the limitations described in the “Discussion” section, however, we noted several issues in this study that need clarification and discussion. Letters to the Editor must be in reference to a specific article or editorial that has been published by the Journal. Letters must be submitted within 6 weeks of the article's print publication or, for an online-only article, within 8 weeks of the date it first appeared online. Letters must be submitted electronically via the Elsevier Editorial System at http://ees.elsevier.com/joms. Letters are subject to editing and those exceeding 500 words may be shortened or not accepted due to length. One photograph may accompany the letter if it is essential to understanding the subject. Letters should not duplicate similar material or material published elsewhere. There is no guarantee that any letter will be published. Prepublication proofs will not be provided. Submitting a Letter to the Editor constitutes the author's permission for its publication in any issue or edition of the journal, in any form or medium. Letters to the Editor must be in reference to a specific article or editorial that has been published by the Journal. Letters must be submitted within 6 weeks of the article's print publication or, for an online-only article, within 8 weeks of the date it first appeared online. Letters must be submitted electronically via the Elsevier Editorial System at http://ees.elsevier.com/joms. Letters are subject to editing and those exceeding 500 words may be shortened or not accepted due to length. One photograph may accompany the letter if it is essential to understanding the subject. Letters should not duplicate similar material or material published elsewhere. There is no guarantee that any letter will be published. Prepublication proofs will not be provided. Submitting a Letter to the Editor constitutes the author's permission for its publication in any issue or edition of the journal, in any form or medium. In ReplyJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryVol. 76Issue 9PreviewWe thank Li et al for their comments on our article. We used the GlideScope (Verathon, Bothell, WA) in our research.1 It uses a camera to provide the operator with an enhanced view of the airway during intubation and has been recommended for use when preoperative evaluation predicts difficulty or as a rescue device after failed direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh laryngoscope.2 We mentioned that 2 anesthesiologists (the second and third authors) intubated all patients. Both anesthesiologists have more than 10 years' experience in a university hospital and have applied the GlideScope in the oral and maxillofacial field. Full-Text PDF