Abstract
Video laryngoscope has recently been introduced as an alternative for performing intubation; however, its validity in emergency settings has not been thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess its value compared with direct laryngoscope in emergency settings. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its value compared with direct laryngoscope in emergency settings. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies published through April 2011. Trials that reported data comparing video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope-assisted intubation in the emergency room or prehospital locations were included. Four trials reporting a total of 1305 participants were identified. During intubation, video laryngoscope failed to produce high rates of successful intubation (success rate: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–1.01). Time to intubation was not different when using either video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscope (standardized mean difference: 0.19; 95% CI: -0.20—0.58). Furthermore, video laryngoscope seems to achieve a similar glottic view as direct laryngoscope (ratio of better glottic view: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.63–1.46). In the reviewed studies, video laryngoscope was not superior to direct laryngoscope for performing intubation in emergency settings.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
