Comparison of the Truview PCD™ and the GlideScope® video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in pediatric patients: a randomized trial (original) (raw)
Related papers
The GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2005
Background. The GlideScope Ò Video Laryngoscope is a new intubating device. It was designed to provide a view of the glottis without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and tracheal axes. The aim of the study was to describe the use of the GlideScope Ò in comparison with direct laryngoscopy for elective surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation. Methods. Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to intubation by direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh size 3 blade (DL, n=100) or intubation using the GlideScope Ò (GS, n=100). Prior to intubation all patients were given a Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grade by a separate anaesthetist using a Macintosh size 3 blade. The patient was then intubated, using direct laryngoscopy or the GlideScope Ò , by a different anaesthetist during which the larynx was inspected and given a laryngoscopy score. Time to intubate was measured. Results. In the GS group, laryngoscopy grade was improved in the majority (28/41) of patients with C&L grade >1 and in all but one of patients who were grade 3 laryngoscopy (P<0.001). The overall mean time to intubate was 30 (95% CI 28-33) s in the DL group and 46 (95% CI 43-49) s in the GS group. The time to intubate for C&L grade 3 was similar in both groups, being 47 s for the DL group and 50 s for the GS group respectively. Conclusion. In most patients, the GlideScope Ò provided a laryngoscopic view equal to or better than that of direct laryngoscopy, but it took an additional 16 s (average) for tracheal intubation. It has potential advantages over standard direct laryngoscopy for difficult intubations.
A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope for laryngeal views
Objective: T o describe the use of the Glidescope in comparison with direct laryngoscopy for elective surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation. Methods :Two hundred patients, ASA In scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation were selected. Information was collected identifying the patient demographics and airway assessment features (Mallampati oropharyngeal scale, thyromenta distance and mouth opening). In a random crossover design, after induction of anesthesia and neuromuscular block, the laryngoscopes were inserted in turn. and the views of the glottis at laryngoscopy (Cormack and 1-ehane scores) were compared. The tracchea was intubated using either the standard Macintosh laryngoscope or Glidescope after the second grading at laryngoscopy was done. Complications associated with intubating were recorded. Results : There were 200 patients including 107 males and 93 females, with mean age being 521t13 years, height 164. S i l l. 3 cm, weight 64. O k l l .
GlideScope® Versus C-MAC® Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?
Iranian Journal of Pediatrics
Background: The emergence of video laryngoscopy in the management of pediatric airways has been invaluable as it has been known that these patients are prone to airway complications. Video laryngoscopes are proven to improve glottic view in both normal and difficult airways in pediatric patients. The time taken to intubate using these devices is inconsistent. Objectives: This study was designed to compare the time to intubate using two common video laryngoscopes, C-MAC®, and GlideScope®, aimed at pediatric patients age 3 - 12 years old. Methods: A Randomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 ASA I or II patients, aged 3 - 12 years old who underwent elective surgery using endotracheal tube. They were divided into group 1 patients who were intubated using C-MAC® video laryngoscope versus group 2 patients who were intubated with GlideScope® video laryngoscope. Laryngoscopists were all anesthetists with experience in both C-MAC® and GlideScope® intubation. Time to intubate and intuba...
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2016
During video laryngoscopy (VL) with angulated or hyper-curved blades, it is sometimes difficult to complete tracheal intubation despite a full view of the larynx. When using indirect VL, it has been suggested that it may be preferable to obtain a deliberately restricted view of the larynx to facilitate passage of the endotracheal tube. We used the GlideScope® GVL video laryngoscope (GVL) to test whether deliberately obtaining a restricted view would result in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view of the larynx. We recruited 163 elective surgical patients and randomly allocated the participants to one of two groups: Group F, where a full view of the larynx was obtained and held during GVL-facilitated tracheal intubation, and Group R, with a restricted view of the larynx (< 50% of glottic opening visible). Study investigators experienced in indirect VL performed the intubations. The intubations were recorded and the video recordings were subsequently assessed ...
Evaluation of the GlideScope Direct: A New Video Laryngoscope for Teaching Direct Laryngoscopy
Anesthesiology Research and Practice, 2012
Background. Teaching direct laryngoscopy is limited by the inability of the instructor to simultaneously view the airway with the laryngoscopist. Our primary aim is to report our initial use of the GlideScope Direct, a video-enabled, Macintosh laryngoscope intended primarily as a training tool in direct laryngoscopy. Methods. The GlideScope Direct was made available to anyone who planned on performing direct laryngoscopy as the primary technique for intubation. Novices were those who had performed <30 intubations. Results. The GlideScope Direct was used 123 times as primarily a direct laryngoscope while the instructor viewed the intubation on the monitor. It was highly successful as a direct laryngoscope (93% success). Salvage by indirect laryngoscopy occurred in 7/9 remaining patients without changing equipment. Novices performed 28 intubations (overall success rate of 79%). In 6 patients, the instructor took over and successfully intubated the patient. Instructors used the video images to guide the operator in 16 (57%) of those patients. Seven different instructors supervised the 28 novices, all of who subjectively felt advantaged by having the laryngoscopic view available. Conclusions. The GlideScope Direct functions similarly to a Macintosh laryngoscope and provides the instructor subjective reassurance, while providing the ability to guide the trainee laryngoscopist.
The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: A Narrative Review
The Open Anesthesiology Journal
The GlideScope video laryngoscope has had a profound impact on clinical airway management by virtue of providing a glottic view superior to direct laryngoscopy. Since its introduction circa 2003, hundreds of studies have attested to its value in making clinical airway management easier and safer. This review will update the reader on the art and science of using the GlideScope videolaryngoscope in a variety of clinical settings and its relation to other airway management products. Topics covered include GlideScope design considerations, general usage tips, use in obese patients, use in pediatric patients, use as an adjunct to fiberoptic intubation, and other matters. Complications associated with the GlideScope are also discussed.
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 2016
Prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Setting: University hospital operation room. Patients: 104 patients scheduled for elective dental or maxillofacial surgery were randomized to two groups: GlideScope® classic (GSc) and GlideScope® direct (GSd). Interventions: We compared the video laryngoscopes GSc and GSd with each other and with direct laryngoscopy (DL) for nasotracheal intubation with regard to visualization of the glottis, intubation success rate, and required time for and ease of intubation. The aim of the study was to determine whether the use of the video monitor alone reduced the difficulty of nasotracheal intubation, and also to investigate whether the GSc, with its blade designed for difficult airways, had an additional advantage over the video-assisted Macintosh blade (GSd). In both groups the investigators first performed laryngoscopy using the GSd blade, first with the monitor concealed and then with it visible. In the GSd group the tube was then inserted into the trachea with the video monitor screen visible. In the GSc group, the GSd blade was exchanged for the GSc blade, which was then used when inserting the tube with the screen visible. Results: The success rates and the times required for the video-assisted nasotracheal intubation did not differ significantly between the groups. A better view was obtained more often in the GSc group. In both groups there was a significant difference between direct laryngoscopy and the video-assisted intubation technique. Overall, using the video monitor improved the C-L scores by one grade in 52% and by two grades in 11% of the patients. Conclusions: Video laryngoscopes increase the ease of nasotracheal intubation. The GSc blade might provide a better view of the laryngeal structures in case of a difficult airway than the GSd blade. Video laryngoscopy per se gives a better view of the glottis than direct laryngoscopy.
Anesthesiology, 2012
Background Intubation in children is increasingly performed using video laryngoscopes. Many pediatric studies examine novice laryngoscopists or describe single patient experiences. This prospective randomized nonblinded equivalence trial compares intubation time for the GlideScope Cobalt® video laryngoscope (GCV, Verathon Medical, Bothell, WA) with direct laryngoscopy with a Miller blade (DL, Heine, Dover, NH) in anatomically normal neonates and infants. The primary hypothesis was that intubation times with GCV would be noninferior to DL. Methods Sixty subjects presenting for elective surgery were randomly assigned to intubation using GCV or DL. Intubation time, time to best view, percentage of glottic opening score, and intubation success were documented. We defined an intubation time difference of less than 10 s as clinically insignificant. Results There was no difference in intubation time between the groups (GCV median = 22.6 s; DL median = 21.4 s; P = 0.24). The 95% one-sided C...