Comparison of McGrath, Pentax, and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin by novices: a randomized crossover trial

In Kyong Yi, Hyun Jeong Kwak, Kyung Cheon Lee, Ji Hyea Lee, Sang Kee Min, Jong Yeop Kim, In Kyong Yi, Hyun Jeong Kwak, Kyung Cheon Lee, Ji Hyea Lee, Sang Kee Min, Jong Yeop Kim

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare tracheal intubation performance regarding the time to intubation, glottic view, difficulty, and dental click, by novices using McGrath videolaryngoscope (VL), Pentax Airway Scope (AWS) and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin models.

Methods: Thirty-five anesthesia nurses without previous intubation experience were recruited. Participants performed endotracheal intubation in a manikin model at two simulated neck positions (normal and fixed neck via cervical immobilization), using three different devices three times each. Performance parameters included intubation time, success rate of intubation, Cormack Lehane laryngoscope grading, dental click, and subjective difficulty score.

Results: Intubation time and success rate during first attempt were not significantly different between the 3 groups in normal airway manikin. In the cervical immobilized manikin, the intubation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and the success rate with the first attempt was significantly higher (p < 0.001) when using McGrath VL and Pentax AWS compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. Both VLs showed less difficulty score (p < 0.001) and more Cormack Lehane grade I (p < 0.001) in both scenarios. The incidence of dental clicks was higher with Macintosh laryngoscope compared with McGrath VL in cervical immobilized airway (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: McGrath VL and Pentax AWS did not show clinically significant decrease in intubation time, however, they achieved higher first attempt success rate, easier intubation and better glottis view compared with Macintosh laryngoscope by novices in a cervical immobilized manikin model. McGrath VL may reduce the risk of dental injury compared with Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical immobilized scenario.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161730), May 22, 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/hom.

Keywords: Cervical immobilization; Intubation; Laryngoscopy; Novice; Videolaryngoscope.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consort diagram

References

    1. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1990;72:828–833. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199005000-00010.
    1. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:607–613. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122825.04923.15.
    1. Lossius HM, Roislien J, Lockey DJ. Patient safety in pre-hospital emergency tracheal intubation: a comprehensive meta-analysis of the intubation success rates of EMS providers. Crit Care. 2012;16:R24. doi: 10.1186/cc11189.
    1. Jaber S, Amraoui J, Lefrant JY, Arich C, Cohendy R, Landreau L, et al. Clinical practice and risk factors for immediate complications of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2355–2361. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000233879.58720.87.
    1. Schwartz DE, Matthay MA, Cohen NH. Death and other complications of emergency airway management in critically ill adults. A prospective investigation of 297 tracheal intubations. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:367–376. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199502000-00007.
    1. Shiga T, Wajima Z, Inoue T, Sakamoto A. Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:429–437. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200508000-00027.
    1. Wong E, Ng YY. The difficult airway in the emergency department. Int J Emerg Med. 2008;1:107–111. doi: 10.1007/s12245-008-0030-6.
    1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632–642. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer059.
    1. Nolan JP, Wilson ME. Orotracheal intubation in patients with potential cervical spine injuries. An indication for the gum elastic bougie. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:630–633. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb07133.x.
    1. Smith CE, Pinchak AB, Sidhu TS, Radesic BP, Pinchak AC, Hagen JF. Evaluation of tracheal intubation difficulty in patients with cervical spine immobilization: fiberoptic (WuScope) versus conventional laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:1253–1259. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199911000-00015.
    1. Heath KJ. The effect of laryngoscopy of different cervical spine immobilisation techniques. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:843–845. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb04254.x.
    1. Gaither JB, Spaite DW, Stolz U, Ennis J, Mosier J, Sakles JJ. Prevalence of difficult airway predictors in cases of failed prehospital endotracheal intubation. J Emerg Med. 2014;47:294–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.04.021.
    1. Maharaj CH, McDonnell JG, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of direct and indirect laryngoscopes and the ILMA in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:1161–1166. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05216.x.
    1. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:723–730. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen231.
    1. Foulds LT, McGuire BE, Shippey BJ. A randomised cross-over trial comparing the McGrath((R)) Series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with cervical spine immobilisation. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:437–442. doi: 10.1111/anae.13384.
    1. Wang PK, Huang CC, Lee Y, Chen TY, Lai HY. Comparison of 3 video laryngoscopes with the Macintosh in a manikin with easy and difficult simulated airways. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:330–338. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.08.026.
    1. Shin M, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Oh E, Kim HJ. Comparing McGRATH(R) MAC, C-MAC(R), and Macintosh laryngoscopes operated by medical students: a randomized, crossover, manikin study. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8943931.
    1. Kim W, Choi HJ, Lim T, Kang BS. Can the new McGrath laryngoscope rival the GlideScope Ranger portable video laryngoscope? A randomized manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32:1225–1229. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.07.034.
    1. Ilyas S, Symons J, Bradley WP, Segal R, Taylor H, Lee K, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing tracheal intubation plus manual in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine using the Macintosh laryngoscope vs the McGrath((R)) Series 5 videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:1345–1350. doi: 10.1111/anae.12804.
    1. Arima T, Nagata O, Miura T, Ikeda K, Mizushima T, Takahashi A, et al. Comparative analysis of airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation primarily for cardiac arrest in prehospital setting. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32:40–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.09.026.
    1. Choi JW, Kim JA, Jung HJ, Kim WH. Tracheal intubation with a McGrath(R) Series 5 video laryngoscope by novice personnel in a cervical-immobilized manikin. J Emerg Med. 2016;50:61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.06.079.
    1. Gawlowski P, Iskrzyck IL. Comparison of Macintosh and AWS Pentax laryngoscope for intubation in cervical immobilization scenario. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:791–792. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.049.
    1. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:369–383. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex228.
    1. Hwang SM. A good laryngeal view does not guarantee perfectly successful tracheal intubation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69:111–112. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2016.69.2.111.
    1. Wetsch WA, Carlitscheck M, Spelten O, Teschendorf P, Hellmich M, Genzwurker HV, et al. Success rates and endotracheal tube insertion times of experienced emergency physicians using five video laryngoscopes: a randomised trial in a simulated trapped car accident victim. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:849–858. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834c7c7f.
    1. Pieters BM, Wilbers NE, Huijzer M, Winkens B, van Zundert AA. Comparison of seven videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope in manikins by experienced and novice personnel. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:556–564. doi: 10.1111/anae.13413.
    1. Kriege M, Alflen C, Noppens RR. Using King Vision video laryngoscope with a channeled blade prolongs time for tracheal intubation in different training levels, compared to non-channeled blade. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0183382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183382.
    1. Huitink JM, Bouwman RA. The myth of the difficult airway: airway management revisited. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:244–249. doi: 10.1111/anae.12989.
    1. Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Airway scope: early clinical experience in 405 patients. J Anesth. 2008;22:81–85. doi: 10.1007/s00540-007-0580-4.
    1. Grensemann J, Eichler L, Wang N, Jarczak D, Simon M, Kluge S. Endotracheal tube-mounted camera-assisted intubation versus conventional intubation in intensive care: a prospective, randomised trial (VivaITN) Crit Care. 2018;22:235. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2152-4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner