Comparison of BPL™ Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope Guided Throat Packing for Head and Neck Surgeries: A Randomised Controlled Study

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence regarding throat packing for head and neck surgeries is limited. A video laryngoscope, an airway adjunct used for various diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, can also effectively pack the throat. Aim: To compare the Time Taken for Throat Packing (TTTP) using a non-channeled video laryngoscope BPL™ versus the conventional Macintosh larynogoscope direct laryngoscope. Materials and Methods: In this non-inferiority, randomised controlled, single-blind study, 72 patients undergoing head and neck surgeries requiring throat packing were recruited. The non-inferiority margin was set at 10 seconds between the two groups (n=36 each). Throat packing in Group-M and Group-V was performed using the Macintosh and video laryngoscopes with the assistance of Magill’s forceps. The TTTP was recorded from the blade insertion to complete blade removal. A one-sided two-sample unpaired t-test was used to test non-inferiority hypothesis considered in this study. Results: The mean age of patients in Group-M was 37.39 years and in Group-V was 33.65 years, with mean weights of 60.89 kg and 56.32 kg, respectively. The mean TTTP difference between Group-M and Group-V was found to be -12.6 seconds with a lower limit of the one-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of −20.6s. The null hypothesis was accepted, concluding that video laryngoscope-guided throat packing took a longer duration. The ease of throat packing, haemodynamic stress response, and Postoperative Sore Throat (POST) were comparable between both groups. Conclusion: Video laryngoscope-guided throat packing is inferior to conventional Macintosh throat packing in terms of TTTP. However, it is equivocal regarding the ease of throat packing and the stress response induced. POST was the same whether throat packing was performed using a video laryngoscope or a Macintosh laryngoscope.