Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures

Mrunalini Parasa, Srivishnu Vardhan Yallapragada, Nagendra Nath Vemuri, Mastan Saheb Shaik, Mrunalini Parasa, Srivishnu Vardhan Yallapragada, Nagendra Nath Vemuri, Mastan Saheb Shaik

Abstract

Background: GlideScope (GS) is a video laryngoscope that allows a real-time view of the glottis and endotracheal intubation. It provides a better view of the larynx without the need for alignment of the airway axes.

Aim: This prospective randomized comparative study is designed to compare the intubation time, hemodynamic response, and complications associated with intubation using a GS or Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) in adult subjects undergoing elective surgical procedures.

Materials and methods: Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-2 patients were included in this prospective randomized comparative study. Patients were randomized to be intubated using either a GS or an ML. The primary outcome measure was the intubation time. The secondary outcome measures were the hemodynamic response to intubation and the incidence of mucosal injury.

Statistical analysis: Mean and standard deviation were calculated for different parameters under the study. The observed results were analyzed using Student's t-test for quantitative data and Z-test of proportions. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Intubation time was longer in GS group (45.7033 ± 11.649 s) as compared to ML (27.773 ± 5.122 s) P< 0.0001 with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -13.2794 to -22.5806. GS provided better Cormack and Lehane laryngoscopic view (P = 0.0016 for grade 1 view) with 95% CI -0.1389 to -0.5951. GS group exhibited more laryngoscopic response than ML group with more increase in blood pressure and heart rate, but the difference was not statistically significant. More cases of mucosal trauma were documented in GS group.

Conclusion: Use of GS to facilitate intubation led to better glottic view but took a longer time to achieve endotracheal intubation. GS was associated with more hemodynamic response to intubation and mucosal injury in comparison with an ML.

Keywords: Cormack and Lehane grade; GlideScope; Macintosh laryngoscope; intubation time.

References

    1. Thong SY, Goh SY. Reported complications associated with the use of GlideScope ® video laryngoscope – How can they be prevented? OA Anaesthetics. 2013;1:1–6.
    1. Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope video laryngoscope: Randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381–4.
    1. Nasim S, Maharaj CH, Malik MA, O' Donnell J, Higgins BD, Laffey JG. Comparison of the Glidescope® and Pentax AWS® laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by Advanced Paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation. BMC Emerg Med. 2009;9:1–9.
    1. Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, Kheterpal S. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:1–20.
    1. Magboul MM, Joel S. The video laryngoscopes blind spots and possible lingual nerve injury by the gliderite® rigid stylet – Case presentation and review of literature. MEJ Anesth. 2010;20:1–4.
    1. Ibinson JW, Ezaru CS, Cormican DS, Mangione MP. GlideScope use improves intubation success rates: An observational study using propensity score matching. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14:1–8.
    1. Rabiner JE, Auerbach M, Avner JR, Daswani D, Khine H. Comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of a pediatric simulator by novice physicians. Emerg Med Int. 2013;2013:1–6.
    1. Lai HY, Chen IH, Hwang FY, Lee Y. The use of Glidescope® for tracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Anaesth. 2006;97:419–22.
    1. Powell L, Andrzejowski J, Taylor R, Turnbull D. Comparison of the performance of four laryngoscopes in a high-fidelity simulator using normal and difficult airway. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:755–60.
    1. Solimana R, Mofeedb M, Alamoudy O, Farouk A. A prospective randomized comparative study between Macintosh and GlideScope in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Egypt J Cardiothorac Anesth. 2015;9:8–13.
    1. Bathory I, Frascarolo P, Kern C, Schoettker P. Evaluation of the GlideScope ® for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilisation by a semi-rigid collar. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1337–41.
    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;101:723–30.
    1. Choi HJ, Kim YM, Oh YM, Kang HG, Yim HW, Jeong SH. GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: A propensity score-matched analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5:1–7.
    1. Aqil M. A study of stress response to endotracheal intubation comparing glidescope and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30:1001–6.
    1. Suppan L, Tramèr MR, Niquille M, Grosgurin O, Marti C. Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:1–10.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner