Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study

OBJECTIVE: Several videolaryngoscopes have been developed for using in difficult airway. We conducted this study to evaluate the performance of McGrath(®) MAC and King Vision(®) videolaryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Ajay, Taluja, Anupma, Saxena, Bhavna, Dwivedi, Puneet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36301282
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2022.21285
_version_ 1784834968151654400
author Kumar, Ajay
Taluja, Anupma
Saxena, Bhavna
Dwivedi, Puneet
author_facet Kumar, Ajay
Taluja, Anupma
Saxena, Bhavna
Dwivedi, Puneet
author_sort Kumar, Ajay
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Several videolaryngoscopes have been developed for using in difficult airway. We conducted this study to evaluate the performance of McGrath(®) MAC and King Vision(®) videolaryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted in 140 surgical patients. Anaesthesia was administered as per standard protocol. A cervical collar was applied to simulate a difficult airway. Patients were randomised into 2 groups. In group M (n = 70), laryngoscopy was performed first with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope and second time with McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device, while in group K (n = 70), laryngoscopy was performed first with McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope and second time with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device. The laryngeal view, time taken for optimal laryngeal view, number of intubation attempts, ease of intubation, first attempt intubation success, time to tracheal intubation, haemodynamic parameters, and complications such as airway trauma, if any, were noted. RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was faster with McGrath(®) MAC (34.89 ± 3.7 seconds) compared to King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope (43.43 ± 4.3 seconds, P  < .001) with comparable first attempt intubation success by 100% vs 97.1%, P  = .496, respectively. The laryngeal view obtained with both the devices was comparable but the mean time taken for optimal laryngeal view was significantly longer with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope, both in group M (P  < .001) and group K (P  < .001). Ease of intubation and complications were comparable in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope in comparison to King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope resulted in a shorter time taken for optimal laryngeal view and time to tracheal intubation with comparable first attempt intubation success.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9682938
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96829382022-12-02 A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study Kumar, Ajay Taluja, Anupma Saxena, Bhavna Dwivedi, Puneet Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim Original Article OBJECTIVE: Several videolaryngoscopes have been developed for using in difficult airway. We conducted this study to evaluate the performance of McGrath(®) MAC and King Vision(®) videolaryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted in 140 surgical patients. Anaesthesia was administered as per standard protocol. A cervical collar was applied to simulate a difficult airway. Patients were randomised into 2 groups. In group M (n = 70), laryngoscopy was performed first with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope and second time with McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device, while in group K (n = 70), laryngoscopy was performed first with McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope and second time with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device. The laryngeal view, time taken for optimal laryngeal view, number of intubation attempts, ease of intubation, first attempt intubation success, time to tracheal intubation, haemodynamic parameters, and complications such as airway trauma, if any, were noted. RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was faster with McGrath(®) MAC (34.89 ± 3.7 seconds) compared to King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope (43.43 ± 4.3 seconds, P  < .001) with comparable first attempt intubation success by 100% vs 97.1%, P  = .496, respectively. The laryngeal view obtained with both the devices was comparable but the mean time taken for optimal laryngeal view was significantly longer with King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope, both in group M (P  < .001) and group K (P  < .001). Ease of intubation and complications were comparable in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: McGrath(®) MAC videolaryngoscope in comparison to King Vision(®) videolaryngoscope resulted in a shorter time taken for optimal laryngeal view and time to tracheal intubation with comparable first attempt intubation success. Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 2022-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9682938/ /pubmed/36301282 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2022.21285 Text en © Copyright 2022 authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Ajay
Taluja, Anupma
Saxena, Bhavna
Dwivedi, Puneet
A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study
title_sort comparative evaluation of 2 videolaryngoscopes as an intubation aid in a simulated difficult airway: a prospective randomised study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36301282
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2022.21285
work_keys_str_mv AT kumarajay acomparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT talujaanupma acomparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT saxenabhavna acomparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT dwivedipuneet acomparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT kumarajay comparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT talujaanupma comparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT saxenabhavna comparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy
AT dwivedipuneet comparativeevaluationof2videolaryngoscopesasanintubationaidinasimulateddifficultairwayaprospectiverandomisedstudy