Cargando…

A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: The C-MAC(® )(Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) has recently been introduced as a new device for videolaryngoscopy guided intubation. The purpose of the present study was to compare for the first time the C-MAC with conventional direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cavus, Erol, Thee, Carsten, Moeller, Thora, Kieckhaefer, Joerg, Doerges, Volker, Wagner, Klaus
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21362173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-11-6
_version_ 1782200499037011968
author Cavus, Erol
Thee, Carsten
Moeller, Thora
Kieckhaefer, Joerg
Doerges, Volker
Wagner, Klaus
author_facet Cavus, Erol
Thee, Carsten
Moeller, Thora
Kieckhaefer, Joerg
Doerges, Volker
Wagner, Klaus
author_sort Cavus, Erol
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The C-MAC(® )(Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) has recently been introduced as a new device for videolaryngoscopy guided intubation. The purpose of the present study was to compare for the first time the C-MAC with conventional direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia. METHODS: After approval of the institutional review board and written informed consent, 150 patients (ASA I-III) with general anaesthesia were enrolled. Computer-based open crossover randomisation was used to determine the sequence of the three laryngoscopies: Conventional direct laryngoscopy (HEINE Macintosh classic, Herrsching, Germany; blade sizes 3 or 4; DL group), C-MAC size 3 (C-MAC3 group) and C-MAC size 4 (C-MAC4 group) videolaryngoscopy, respectively. After 50 patients, laryngoscopy technique in the C-MAC4 group was changed to the straight blade technique described by Miller (C-MAC4/SBT). RESULTS: Including all 150 patients (70 male, aged (median [range]) 53 [20-82] years, 80 [48-179] kg), there was no difference of glottic view between DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4, and C-MAC4/SBT groups; however, worst glottic view (C/L 4) was only seen with DL, but not with C-MAC videolaryngoscopy. In the subgroup of patients that had suboptimal glottic view with DL (C/L≥2a; n = 24), glottic view was improved in the C-MAC4/SBT group; C/L class improved by three classes in 5 patients, by two classes in 2 patients, by one class in 8 patients, remained unchanged in 8 patients, or decreased by two classes in 1 patient. The median (range) time taken for tracheal intubation in the DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4 and C-MAC4/SBT groups was 8 sec (2-91 sec; n = 44), 10 sec (2-60 sec; n = 37), 8 sec (5-80 sec; n = 18) and 12 sec (2-70 sec; n = 51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the benefits of conventional direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in one device, the C-MAC may serve as a standard intubation device for both routine airway management and educational purposes. However, in patients with suboptimal glottic view (C/L≥2a), the C-MAC size 4 with straight blade technique may reduce the number of C/L 3 or C/L 4 views, and therefore facilitate intubation. Further studies on patients with difficult airway should be performed to confirm these findings.
format Text
id pubmed-3060123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30601232011-03-18 A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia Cavus, Erol Thee, Carsten Moeller, Thora Kieckhaefer, Joerg Doerges, Volker Wagner, Klaus BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: The C-MAC(® )(Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) has recently been introduced as a new device for videolaryngoscopy guided intubation. The purpose of the present study was to compare for the first time the C-MAC with conventional direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia. METHODS: After approval of the institutional review board and written informed consent, 150 patients (ASA I-III) with general anaesthesia were enrolled. Computer-based open crossover randomisation was used to determine the sequence of the three laryngoscopies: Conventional direct laryngoscopy (HEINE Macintosh classic, Herrsching, Germany; blade sizes 3 or 4; DL group), C-MAC size 3 (C-MAC3 group) and C-MAC size 4 (C-MAC4 group) videolaryngoscopy, respectively. After 50 patients, laryngoscopy technique in the C-MAC4 group was changed to the straight blade technique described by Miller (C-MAC4/SBT). RESULTS: Including all 150 patients (70 male, aged (median [range]) 53 [20-82] years, 80 [48-179] kg), there was no difference of glottic view between DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4, and C-MAC4/SBT groups; however, worst glottic view (C/L 4) was only seen with DL, but not with C-MAC videolaryngoscopy. In the subgroup of patients that had suboptimal glottic view with DL (C/L≥2a; n = 24), glottic view was improved in the C-MAC4/SBT group; C/L class improved by three classes in 5 patients, by two classes in 2 patients, by one class in 8 patients, remained unchanged in 8 patients, or decreased by two classes in 1 patient. The median (range) time taken for tracheal intubation in the DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4 and C-MAC4/SBT groups was 8 sec (2-91 sec; n = 44), 10 sec (2-60 sec; n = 37), 8 sec (5-80 sec; n = 18) and 12 sec (2-70 sec; n = 51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the benefits of conventional direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in one device, the C-MAC may serve as a standard intubation device for both routine airway management and educational purposes. However, in patients with suboptimal glottic view (C/L≥2a), the C-MAC size 4 with straight blade technique may reduce the number of C/L 3 or C/L 4 views, and therefore facilitate intubation. Further studies on patients with difficult airway should be performed to confirm these findings. BioMed Central 2011-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3060123/ /pubmed/21362173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-11-6 Text en Copyright ©2011 Cavus et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cavus, Erol
Thee, Carsten
Moeller, Thora
Kieckhaefer, Joerg
Doerges, Volker
Wagner, Klaus
A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title_full A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title_fullStr A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title_full_unstemmed A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title_short A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
title_sort randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the c-mac videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21362173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-11-6
work_keys_str_mv AT cavuserol arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT theecarsten arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT moellerthora arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT kieckhaeferjoerg arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT doergesvolker arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT wagnerklaus arandomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT cavuserol randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT theecarsten randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT moellerthora randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT kieckhaeferjoerg randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT doergesvolker randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia
AT wagnerklaus randomisedcontrolledcrossovercomparisonofthecmacvideolaryngoscopewithdirectlaryngoscopyin150patientsduringroutineinductionofanaesthesia