King Vision Video Laryngoscope Research Articles

Comparison of Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients

Background: Development of video laryngoscope has made management of airway easier. 0ur study was aimed to compare the efficacy of Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients under general anesthesia. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to compare the glottic view obtained , the need for external manipulation, endotracheal tube insertion time and attempts taken for successful intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope. The secondary objective was to estimate the changes in hemodynamic parameters and to evaluate the occurrence of complications during intubation. Materials and Methods: The study included 136 patients posted for surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated in group C (N=68) and group V (N=68 ).Endotracheal intubation was done in group C by Macintosh and in group V by King Vision video laryngoscope. Laryngoscopy was assessed by Cormack Lehane grading and the need for any manipulation. The intubation time was calculated with each blade. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded and any complication during laryngoscopy and intubation were noted. The observations were analysed statistically by SPSS Program for windows version 28. Results: In group C, 61.8% of patients had Cormack and Lehane score I while in group V 76.5 % of patients had score I . Mean time of successful intubation was 34.90±8.35 sec in group C while in group V it was 32.82± 5.20 second . There was no statistical difference in distribution of patients according to number of attempts of intubation. In group C, 64.7% of patients needed external laryngeal pressure while in group V 97.1 % patients were intubated without external laryngeal pressure. Both the groups were comparable in relation to changes in hemodynamic parameters and any complications associated with laryngoscopy and intubation. Conclusion: We conclude that glottic view is better obtained with King Vision Video laryngoscope whereas optimisation of position and external laryngeal manipulation is often required with Macintosh laryngoscope to get similar glottic view. Introduction of King Vision video laryngoscope into the oral cavity takes time but intubation is easier with it. Hemodynamic variables and complications during the procedure are equally distributed between the two devices.

Comparison of king vision video laryngoscope with macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation: Randomized control study

Nasotracheal intubation is essential in oro-maxillofacial surgeries to provide a good operational field along with a secured airway. In this study, we aim to compare king vision video laryngoscope with conventional Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in ear, nose throat and oro-maxillofacial surgeries under general anaesthesia. A total of 102 patients were posted for elective oro-maxillofacial surgeries under general anaesthesia with nasal intubation. Patients were randomized to two different groups. In group K nasotracheal intubation was done with king vision video laryngoscope (KVVL) and in group M with Macintosh laryngoscope. Primary objective was to compare total intubation time and each time intervals (time A: placement of the nasal tube from selected nostril to oropharynx; time B: use of devices to view the glottis, and time C: for nasal tube to be advanced from oropharynx into trachea and removal of the laryngoscope from oral cavity). Secondary objectives were to compare scores of Modified Naso Intubation Difficulty Scale (MNIDS) and haemodynamic responses.The mean total intubation time, and time C interval were noted in King Vision Video Laryngoscope group (37.29±7.83 s and 15.99±8.9 s) and Macintosh laryngoscope group (46.11±10.05 s and 19.86±9.96 s) respectively. There was significant difference between these two groups in terms of mean total intubation time, and time C interval (total time, p=0.001 and time C, p=0.041). The level of difficulty in intubation noted using MNIDS score which is zero in 52.9% patients in King Vision group and 23.5% in Macintosh group (p=0.011).As compared to Macintosh laryngoscope, the king vision laryngoscope requires lesser time for nasotracheal intubation. In addition, Intubation is easier with the king vision laryngoscope than with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Comparison of channelled with non-channelled blade of King Vision videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in patients undergoing emergency surgery: A randomised double blind study

BackgroundPatients undergoing emergency surgery can have both anatomical and physiological difficult airways. There being no consensus on the best strategy to secure such airways, hence the present study evaluated the clinical performance of the two blades of King Vision™ Videolaryngoscope (KVVL). MethodsThis prospective double blind study was done on fifty two patients of 18–80 years aged posted for emergency surgery under general anaesthesia (GA). Patients were randomly assigned to channelled (CH) and non-channelled (NC) group for intubation. The primary outcome was time to tracheal intubation with CH and NC blades. The secondary outcomes among the two groups noted were ease of videolaryngoscope (VL) blade insertion, time to optimal laryngeal view, fremantle score, number of intubation attempts, any manoeuver required to intubate and complications. Haemodynamic parameters were noted before induction, during preoxygenation before laryngoscopy and 5 min after endotracheal intubation. ResultsSignificant shorter time to intubation was noted in NC group (18s) compared with CH group (25s). The NC blade was easier to insert and the time to optimal laryngeal view was also shorter with NC group (7s) as compared to CH group (10s). Fremantle score was comparable among the two groups. Endotracheal tube (ETT) impingment on arytenoids was more common with NC blade. For intubation with CH blade, anticlockwise rotation of ETT was frequently required. ConclusionThe NC blade of KVVL was easier to introduce and resulted in faster intubation, thus favouring its use in patients undergoing emergency surgery under GA. The CH blade of KVVL required anticlockwise rotation to facilitate intubation.

Comparative Evaluation of Linscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscopes in Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction Indirect laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for learning the techniques of airway management. The incorporation of small, less expensive, and yet more reliable video cameras in laryngoscopes has given the process of laryngoscopy and intubation a big leap. The King Visionvideo laryngoscope (Medline Industries, USA) has demonstrated promise in several settings while the Linscope video laryngoscope(Centrum, Turkey) is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of the Linscope video laryngoscope (VL) and King Vision video laryngoscope. Method This is a randomized controlled trial study. Seventy patients, after approval from the institute's ethical clearance, were divided into two groups. In Group A, patients were intubated with Linscope VL and in Group B patients were intubated with King Vision VL as per the protocol. The primary outcome measure was the duration of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were measured by the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and glottic view. Results Both Linscope VL and King Vision VL groups were comparable in terms of mean intubation time (20.34 s vs. 19.45 s). The endotracheal intubation with both devices was 100% successful at the first attempt. Both the devices provided a percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score of > 70% and a clear vision of the glottis. The POGO score obtained with King Vision VL was 83.57 ± 11.41% and with Linscope VL was 87.85 ± 10.31%. POGO score was greater with Linscope VL compared to King Vision VL, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05). Conclusion King Vision demonstrated shorter intubation time and fewer optimization maneuvers. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate on the first attempt. While both devices are viable first-line options, King Vision's well-established efficacy in the literature suggests its preference over Linscope till extensive evidence is available in the future.

Can concurrent use of king vision video laryngoscope and fiberoptic bronchoscope improve efficacy and safety of awake intubation in patients with limited mouth opening? - A case report

Securing the airway by endotracheal intubation in a patient with a restrictive mouth opening poses a challenge to anesthesiologists. Awake tracheal intubation using flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy is the gold standard in the anesthetic management of patients with restricted mouth openings. Awake video laryngoscopy (VL) is being increasingly used for the management of the anticipated difficult airways. We report a case of temporomandibular joint ankylosis with restrictive mouth opening posted for laparoscopic nephrectomy managed by awake intubation with the combined use of king vision VL (KVVL) and fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB). KVVL provided an improved and clear view of the airway structures and FOB helped in guiding and maneuvering the tube safely into the larynx. The combined use of KVVL and FOB enhanced the effectiveness and safety of the procedure.

Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation (TTI) in Conventional Laryngoscope with Video Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation In Laproscopic Surgeries

Background: Direct laryngoscopy necessitates the alignment of the oropharyngeal-laryngeal axis whereas video laryngoscope is an optical vision which doesn’t require alignment. This study aimed to compare direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade to King-Vision Video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients who were scheduled for elective laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia.
 Methods: In this prospective randomised clinical study,118 adults with ASA I and II requiring endotracheal intubation for laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were enrolled and randomised into either of the two groups by envelope method, Group DL-direct laryngoscope and Group VL-video laryngoscope where they were intubated using direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blade or King Vision videolaryngoscope. The Primary objective was to compare Time to intubate(TTI), Visualization of the laryngeal view by Cormack-Lehane grade and Successful first attempt. Secondary objective was to record the Number of intubation failure, Number of attempts, Change of anaesthesiologist and use of adjunct equipment and the complications such as oropharyngeal trauma, neck pain, dysphagia and hoarseness.
 Results: In comparison to group DL (21.67±4.318s), group VL took longer time to intubate (26.21± 4.150s) but had superior glottic vision than DL group(p=0.0177). Compared to DL group (72.4%), the VL (84.5%) patients had their first successful attempt, inspite of 2 failures. Complications such as pharyngeal pain (8.6%vs29.3%), hoarseness (5.2%vs29.3%), Use of adjunct equipment like bougie (19%vs 3.4%) were significantly higher in DL compared to VL group, while oropharyngeal injury, dysphagia, number of attempts and change of anaesthetists were similar in both groups.
 Conclusion: In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, the King-vision VideoLaryngoscope took longer to intubate but had clearer glottis visualisation and a higher first-time success rate and can be used as a good teaching tool. In King-vision video laryngoscope, there was less use of auxiliary equipment and fewer complications.

Comparative evaluation of the performance and outcomes of endotracheal intubation by King vision video laryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for general anaesthesia

Comparative evaluation of the performance and outcomes of endotracheal intubation by King vision video laryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for general anaesthesia

Comparison of king vision video laryngoscope versus mccoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine

Background: Objective of this study was to compare King vision video laryngoscope versus McCoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with simulated immobilized cervical spine in terms of mean intubation time and number of attempts and successful intubation. Methodology: This was a prospective randomized study of 70 patients of ASA Grade I or II and aged 18- 60yrs, who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Intubation was done with either King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) [Group A] or McCoy laryngoscope [Group B] after immobilizing the cervical spine using a cervical collar. We compared the mean intubation time, success rate and intubation difficulty using the Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS), glottic visualization using POGO score, hemodynamic parameters and complication if any. Results: Both the groups were comparable regarding the demographic variables such as age, sex, weight and ASA class. The mean intubation time of patients in Group A was significantly less (16.57 ± 4.11 seconds) than Group B (20.14 ± 5.72 seconds) (P= 0.004). IDS and POGO scoring were found significantly better in group A as compared to group B. But intubation success rate was 100% in both groups. Hemodynamic parameters and complications were also comparable. Conclusion: King Vision video laryngoscope is found superior to the McCoy laryngoscope if cervical immobilization is anticipated in terms of ease of intubation and glottic visualization.

Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization. A total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded. The first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization. We conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubationwith King Vision VL.

EFFECT OF REMIFENTANIL BOLUS VS FENTANYL IN ATTENUATING HEMODYNAMIC RESPONSE IN VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPIC ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION

Background Elevation of blood pressure and pulse rate are hemodynamic changes that occur during general anesthesia as a consequence of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation ETI, different laryngoscopies and many drugs have been tried to reduce these changes.
 Objectives To evaluate and compare the efficacy of minimum dose of fentanyl and comparable remifentanil bolus dose during videolaryngoscopic ETI. 
 Patients and MethodsA triple blind randomized clinical trial implemented on 224 patients of age group between 16-65 years of either sex (ASA I and ASA II) scheduled for elective operation under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, they are randomly assigned into two groups, group A and group B representing both fentanyl and remifentanil as the drug preparation was unknown neither by the patient nor by the researcher and nor by the data analyser, in addition propofol two mg/kg and rocuronium 0.8 mg/kg were given then systolic blood pressure SBP, diastolic blood pressure DBP, mean arterial blood pressure MAP and heart rate HR were recorded in five different occasions as (T0) for baseline preinduction, (T1) one minute before ETI, (T2) one minute after ETI, (T3) three minutes after ETI and (T4) five minutes after ETI.
 ResultsThere was a significant difference in the mean value of HR, SBP, DBP, MAP in both groups before, one, three and five minutes after endotracheal intubation with King vision videolaryngoscope KVVL and one μg/kg remifentanil bolus administration (group B) effectively showed substantial reduction in all hemodynamic parameters with significant statistical result (P < 0.05) when compared to intravenous IV fentanyl one μg/kg (group A). 
 ConclusionRemifentanil bolus of one μg/kg is better than intravenous fentanyl one μg/kg in attenuating hemodynamic response to ETI when KVVL used.

Endotracheal Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope in ICU: A Comparative Evaluation of Performance and Outcomes.

Endotracheal intubation to protect airway patency in critically ill patients with the use of videolaryngoscopes has been emerging and their expertise to handle is crucial. Our study focuses on the performance and outcomes of King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL) in intensive care unit (ICU) compared to Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL). This comparative study was conducted by randomizing 143 critically ill patients in ICU into two groups: KVVL and Macintosh DL (n = 73; n = 70). The intubation difficulty was assessed by Mallampati score III or IV, apnea syndrome (obstructive), cervical spine limitation, opening mouth <3 cm, coma, hypoxia, anesthesiologist nontrained (MACOCHA) score. The primary endpoint was the glottic view measured by Cormack-Lehane (CL) grading. The secondary endpoints were a first-pass success, the time required for intubation, airway morbidities, and manipulations required. The KVVL group showed the primary endpoint of significantly improved glottic visualization measured in terms of CL grading compared with the Macintosh DL group (p < 0.001). In the KVVL group, the first pass success rate was higher (95.7%) compared to the Macintosh DL group (81.4%) (p < 0.05). The time required for intubation in the KVVL group (28.77 ± 2.63 seconds) was significantly less compared with Macintosh DL (38.84 ± 2.72 seconds) group (p < 0.001). The airway morbidities observed were similar in both groups (p = 0.5) and the manipulation required for endotracheal intubation was significantly less (p < 0.05) in our KVVL group (16 cases; 23%) compared to the Macintosh DL group (8 cases; 10%). We found that the performance and outcomes of KVVL in intubating critically ill ICU patients were promising when handled by experienced operators who are experts in anesthesiology and airway management. Dharanindra M, Jedge PP, Patil VC, Kulkarni SS, Shah J, Iyer S, et al. Endotracheal Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope in ICU: A Comparative Evaluation of Performance and Outcomes. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(2):101-106.

Comparative evaluation of King Vision videolaryngoscope channeled and non-channeled blades with direct laryngoscope for intubation performance and skill retention by medical students: a randomized cross over two period study.

A videolaryngoscope(VL) with an intubation conduit like KingVision channeled(KVC) blade may provide an added advantage over a non-channeled VL like a KingVision non-channeled (KVNC) blade and direct laryngoscope (DL) for acquiring and retention of intubation skills, especially in novices. In this prospective two-period randomized crossover trial, one hundred medical students used three laryngoscopes KVC, KVNC and DL for intubation following standardized training with the study devices using a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer. After one month, all participants attempted intubation, in the same manner, using all devices. The duration of intubation, modified Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, first-attempt success, number of attempts, ease of intubation and dental trauma was recorded. The retention of intubation skills after 1 month was also assessed on the same parameters. Median intubation times of KVC and DL were comparable and significantly better than KVNC (P < 0.001). The median POGO score was better with both videolaryngoscopes when compared with DL. The ease of intubation (P < 0.0012) and first-attempt success rate (P = 0.001) at the time '0' was significantly better with KVC compared to KVNC and DL. KVC fared better with respect to these intubation parameters during intubation after one month as well. KVC performed better in terms of time to intubation, success rate and ease of procedure as compared to KVNC and DL, both for acquisition and retention of skill. Hence, we advocate that KVC should be the preferred device over KVNC and DL for teaching intubation skills to novices.

First-pass Success Rate and Number of Attempts Required for Intubation in Anticipated Difficult Airway: Comparison between Macintosh and Channeled King Vision Video Laryngoscopes.

Video laryngoscopy has been shown to improvise Cormack-Lehane grading and rate of successful tracheal intubation and is now incorporated in most of the difficult airway guidelines. Since there is scarce literature regarding the use of channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL) in anticipated difficult intubation, we planned to undertake this randomized control trial to assess the performance of channeled blade of KVVL and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with anticipated difficult intubation. This prospective randomized study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned equally to the KVVL group or Macintosh group. The primary outcome of the study was intubation success in the first attempt and number of attempts required for intubation, and the secondary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane grading and time required to intubate in both the groups. The first-pass success of intubation was 88.6% in the KVVL group and 76.5% in the Macintosh group (P = 0.035). The second attempt of intubation was required in 11.4% and 20.6% of patients in the KVVL and Macintosh groups, respectively. Cormack Lehane Grade I was achieved in 100% of patients of the KVVL group as compared to 29.4% of patients in the Macintosh group. Moreover, the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.035). The mean duration of intubation was prolonged in the KVVL group as compared to the Macintosh group, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.04). The channeled blade of KVVL had a higher first-pass success rate and required fewer attempts to intubate when used in patients with anticipated difficult intubation. Further, the KVVL was found to be significantly better than the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of Cormack-Lehane grading, but the time taken to intubate the trachea was more in the KVVL group.

Comparison of endotracheal intubation with Macintosh versus King Vision video laryngoscope using coronavirus disease 2019 barrier box on manikins: A randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus usually spreads through aerosol and close contact. Frontline health-care workers handle aerosol-generating procedures like endotracheal intubation. To reduce this risk, COVID-19 barrier box came into the picture. However, the COVID-19 barrier box may compromise easy and successful intubation, and their limitation must be studied.OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to assess the time to successful intubation with or without the COVID-19 barrier box using the Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL). We also assessed the first-pass success rate, ease of intubation, Cormack–Lehane (CL) grade, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation.METHODS:We conducted this manikin-based randomized crossover study to assess the time to successful intubation by anesthesiologists (22) and emergency physicians (11) having 1 year or more experience with or without COVID-19 barrier box by using the Macintosh laryngoscope and KVVL. Our study randomized the sequence of the four different intubation scenarios.RESULTS:The comparison of mean duration of intubation between KVVL (13.21 ± 4.05 s) and Macintosh laryngoscope (12.89 ± 4.28 s) with COVID-19 barrier box was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 1.21–0.97). The ease of intubation, number of attempts, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation were not statistically significant. Intubations were statistically significant more difficult with barrier box in view of higher CL grade.CONCLUSION:Time to intubation was longer with COVID-19 barrier box using KVVL as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope which was statistically not significant.

Comparison between C-MAC and King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) for tracheal intubation in aerosol-prevention intubation box for COVID-19 patients: A manikin-based study.

Background and Aims:The risk of contracting infection while intubating a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive patient can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), video laryngoscope (VL) and aerosol-preventing intubation box. We compared two VLs (C-MAC and King Vision laryngoscope [KVL]) for ease of intubation and time taken to intubate the manikin using an intubation box.Methods:This randomised study involved healthcare workers having experience in using both C-MAC and KVL. After explaining the study and five practice sessions, a total of 63 volunteers were included; 61 participants gave consent and were enroled. The participants were allowed to intubate initially with one VL as per random sequence. Each participant performed three tracheal intubations with each device (C-MAC VL and KVL) on a manikin using an aerosol-prevention box over the head end at the time of intubation.Results:Time taken, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and the number of attempts taken for successful intubation with C-MAC and KVL were comparable in any of the three attempts (P > 0.05). The participants reported more difficulty in using KVL compared to C-MAC, and insertion of laryngoscope blade into the mouth of manikin for intubation was easy in group C-MAC compared to KVL in all three intubations (P < 0.01).Conclusion:C-MAC and KVL take comparable time for successful intubation under COVID-19 simulation conditions. But C-MAC is more user-friendly.

Comparative Evaluation of King Vision Video Laryngoscope, McCoy and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Patients Scheduled for Mucormycosis Surgery: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Introduction: Mucormycosis, an aggressive fungal infection may result in a difficult airway owing to its inflammation. King Vision Video Laryngoscope (KVVL) is a useful addition to a difficult airway armamentarium. McCoy laryngoscope with hinged tip is well-known equipment of difficult airway cart. Conventional Macintosh laryngoscope dominates in anaesthesia practice. Standard, existing and contemporary devices were compared in difficult airways resulting from mucormycosis. Aim: To compare the relative performance of KVVL, McCoy, and Macintosh laryngoscopes based on the ease of intubation and haemodynamic response in patients with mucormycosis. Materials and Methods: The present study was a randomised clinical trial done during June-August 2021 on 90 consenting patients of 18-65 years age, belonging to either sex with microbiologically confirmed mucormycosis undergoing debridement surgery. Group A was intubated with a non channeled KVVL, while group B had McCoy and group C had Macintosh laryngoscope. Primary outcome parameters were Cormack Lehane (CL) grade, time from laryngoscopy to successful intubation, number of attempts, any adjuncts or optimisation maneuvers, and any mucosal injury. Secondary outcome parameters were Heart Rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), Mean Blood Pressure (MBP) measured on arrival, before induction, after induction, and at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 minutes after intubation. Comparison of quantitative variables not normally distributed were analysed using Kruskal Wallis test. Post-hoc analysis by Dunn's multiple pairwise comparison test. Friedman test followed by pairwise comparison was done to compare haemodynamic parameters within each group. Chi-square test was used for qualitative variables. The p-value ≤0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: CL grade was lowest in group B (1.83±0.38) against group A (1.93±0.25), group C (2.13±0.35) with p-value of 0.029. Time from laryngoscopy to successful intubation was the least in group B (19.5±3.98) against group A (26.07±9.8), group C (21.33±3.74) with p-value of 0.002. No significant difference was there in the number of attempts, airway adjuncts/optimisation maneuvers, mucosal injury. Haemodynamic variables were comparable. Conclusion: McCoy laryngoscope was found to perform best in difficult airways resulting from mucormycosis. It was most effective for glottic visualisation, with the shortest time to successful intubation and, haemodynamic parameters were comparable to KVVL and Macintosh laryngoscopes.

Evaluation of the use of the channeled King Vision video laryngoscope in improving glottic visualisation in patients with limited glottic view with the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective observational study.

Background and Aims:The role of King Vision videolaryngoscope (KVL) is well known in the anticipated difficult airway. However, its performance in patients with unanticipated restricted view of the glottis has never been investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of KVL in patients with limited glottic view (POGO score <50%).Methods:Eighty-five patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in this study. Laryngoscopy was performed in each patient with Macintosh blade followed by the channeled KVL. The laryngeal view obtained with each device was recorded using POGO score and Cormack--Lehane (CL) grade. After that, endotracheal intubation was attempted with the KVL. The haemodynamic parameters, the time taken for endotracheal tube placement and intubation, failure to intubate, modified intubation difficulty score and airway complications were also recorded.Results:There was a statistically significant improvement in the POGO scores with the use of KVL: 20 (0,40) vs 90 (40,100) (P < 0.001). The frequency of CL grade I and II increased from 63% with conventional laryngoscopy to 100% with the KVL. Although the time taken to obtain the best glottic view was significantly longer with the KVL as compared to the Macintosh blade (P < 0.001), the first attempt success rate was 97.65%.Conclusion:Channeled KVL when used by experienced operators provides superior laryngeal view as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with restricted glottic view (POGO score <50%) without any major airway complications.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the King Vision (channeled blade) and the CMAC (D blade) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization.

Background and Aims:Cervical spine immobilization renders direct laryngoscopy difficult. The CMAC D blade and the channeled blade of the King Vision videolaryngoscopes, have both been used for difficult airway management. Our hypothesis is that the channeled blade of the King Vision would be superior to the CMAC D blade in terms of ease of intubation. We tested this hypothesis in a randomized comparison of the two videolaryngoscopes in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilization.Material and Methods:Hundred patients with no anticipated airway difficulty were randomly allocated to two groups after obtaining informed written consent. Following induction, manual inline stabilization (MILS) was applied to simulate a cervical spine injury and immobilzation. Patients were intubated with either of the two videolaryngoscopes. Time for visualization of the glottis, procedural time, intubation difficulty scale (IDS), and hemodynamic response were recorded.Results:The time to visualize the glottis was shorter in the CMAC D group as compared to the King Vision group (P < 0.001). The incidence of external laryngeal manipulation was less in the King Vision group (P < 0.001). The ease of intubation was superior in the King Vision group, based on the IDS (P < 0.001). The haemodynamic response was similar between the groups.Conclusion:King Vision channeled videolaryngoscope was difficult to introduce into the mouth of the patient during laryngoscopy. Once introduced into the mouth, the time for intubation was less and less external laryngeal manipulation maneuvers were performed to achieve successful intubation. The ease of endotracheal intubation was superior for the King Vision videolaryngoscope. The King Vision videolaryngoscope with proper tranining, could be a safe and portable alternative in patients with cervical spine immobilization.

Tracheal intubation with King Vision video laryngoscope in patients with cervical spine instability-Comparison of straight versus curved reinforced endotracheal tubes.

Background and Aims:King Vision video laryngoscope is commonly used to facilitate intubation in corrective surgery for cervical spine instability patients due to less manipulation. Curved and straight reinforced tracheal tubes are regularly used in this surgery as neck of the patient is likely to be flexed. We aimed to compare intubation characteristics between the curved and straight reinforced tubes through King Vision video laryngoscope in patients to be operated for cervical spine instability with the primary objective being intubation time.Methods:Sixty patients undergoing cervical spine surgery were enroled in this prospective randomised comparative clinical study. All were intubated after applying manual in-line stabilisation of the neck, using either curved (group C) or straight (group S) reinforced endotracheal tubes through King Vision video laryngoscope. The intubation time, number of attempts, incidence of tube impingement with arytenoids/aryepiglottic folds, optimisation manoeuvres required and complications were observed. Unpaired ‘t’ test and Chi-square test were used to analyse the data using MedCalc software, version 12.5.Results:Time taken for intubation was shorter with curved compared to straight reinforced tube (16.24 ± 3.09 vs. 29.08 ± 5.48 seconds, P < 0.0001) The first attempt success rate was higher using curved than straight reinforced tube (93.3% vs. 70%, P = 0.02). Incidences of impingement with arytenoids/ aryepiglottic folds and optimisation manoeuvres required more with the straight reinforced tube.Conclusion:The intubation was fast and with higher first attempt success rate with curved than with straight reinforced tube through King Vision videolaryngoscope when used in patients with cervical spine instability.

Macintosh laryngoscope versus AMBU King Vision video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation using a COVID-19 barrier box: A randomized controlled trial.

Background:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) barrier box is being used by health-care workers for protection against aerosol-transmitted infection. Usually, a Macintosh laryngoscope (MC) or a video laryngoscope (VL) is used for endotracheal intubation (ETI). We aimed to determine the most suitable laryngoscope blade in terms of time to ETI, ease of ETI, and the first-pass success rate.Methods:American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into the MC and the King Vision VL groups in a 1:1 ratio. ETI was performed using either the MC (the MC group) or the King Vision VL (the VL group) with a COVID-19 barrier box. The first-pass intubation success rate, intubation time, and ease of ETI were analyzed.Results:The first-pass success rate was higher in the MC group (P = 0.43). The mean duration of ETI was 33 s and 47 s in the MC group and VL group, respectively. The difference was statistically significant between the groups (P = 0.002). The ease of ETI was comparable between the groups (P = 0.57), and the Cormack–Lehane grade was significantly different between the groups (P = 0.0025).Conclusion:ETI duration was shorter in the MC group than in the VL group. Hence, a MC can be used along with a COVID-19 barrier box by experienced operators for the prevention of aerosol spread.