Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade, Conventional C-MAC, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Simulated Easy and Difficult Airways.

Abstract

Recently, to further enhance the potential in the management of difficult airways, the highly angulated D-Blade was added to the C-MAC system. The purpose of this study was to investigate the laryngoscopic view and intubation parameters using the new C-MAC D-Blade in comparison to the conventional C-MAC video laryngoscope and Macintosh direct laryngoscope in simulated easy and difficult airways. We recruited 26 experienced anaesthesia providers into a randomized trial. Each performed tracheal intubation of a Laerdal SimMan(®) manikin with each laryngoscope in the following laryngoscopy scenarios: (1) normal airway, (2) cervical spine immobilization, and (3) tongue edema. The intubation times, success rates, number of intubation attempts, laryngoscopic views, and severity of dental compression were recorded. In all scenarios, video laryngoscopes provided better laryngeal exposure than the ML and appeared to produce less dental pressure. In the cervical spine immobilization scenario, D-Blade caused less dental pressure and showed better Cormack-Lehane (CL) classes than the other devices (p<0.001). There were no differences between video laryngoscopes in success of tracheal intubation (p>0.05). The CMAC provided the most rapid intubation. The rate of failure was 19% with ML. In the tongue edema scenario, the CMAC provided the most rapid and successful intubation (p<0.001). There were no differences between video laryngoscopes in laryngoscopic views according to CL classification and dental pressure (p>0.05). The rate of failure was 46% with the ML and 7% with the D-Blade. The CMAC D-Blade caused less dental pressure than the conventional C-MAC and ML in the cervical immobilization scenario. The conventional CMAC performed better than the D-Blade and ML in the tongue edema scenario. These two video laryngoscopes may complement each other in various difficult airway situations.