Direct Laryngoscopy or Video Laryngoscopy: Which Is Better for Performing Endotracheal Intubation?
,
Abstract
Background: Endotracheal intubation is known as the best and challenging procedure to airway control for patients in shock or with unprotected airways. Failed intubation can have serious consequences and lead to high morbidity and mortality of the patients. Videolaryngoscope is a new device that contains a miniaturized camera at the blade tip to visualize the glottis indirectly. Fewer failed intubations have occurred when a videolaryngoscope was used. Other types of videolaryngoscopes were then developed; all have been shown to improve the view of the vocal cords. It may be inferred that for the professional group, including emergency physicians, paramedics, or emergency nurses, video laryngoscopy may be a good alternative to direct laryngoscopy for intubation under difficult conditions. The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the C-MAC 20% versus direct laryngoscopy 13%.
The main goal of this review was to compare the direct laryngoscopy with the (indirect) video laryngoscopy in terms of increased first success rate and good vision of the larynx to find a smooth induction of endotracheal intubation.
Methods: Currently available evidence on MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar and Cochrane Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, in addition to the citation reviews by manual search of new anesthesia and surgical journals related to laryngoscopies and tracheal intubation.
Results: This review of recent studies showed that the laryngoscopic device design would result in smooth approach of endotracheal intubation by means of good visualization of glottis and the best success rates in the hands of both the experienced and novice. Video laryngoscopes may improve safety by avoiding many unnecessary attempts when performing tracheal intubation with DL compared to VL as well as easy learning of both direct and indirect laryngoscopy.
Conclusion: The comparative studies of different video laryngoscopes showed that DL compared with VL, reveal that video laryngoscopes reduced failed intubation in anticipated difficult airways, improve a good laryngeal view and found that there were fewer failed intubations using a videolaryngoscope when the intubator had equivalent experience with both devices, but not with DL alone. And therefore, knowledge about ETI and their skills, are crucial in increasing the rate of survival.
[2] Faramarzi E, Soleimanpour H, Khan ZH, Mahmoodpoor A, Sanaie S. Upper lip bite test for prediction of difficult airway: a systematic review. Pakistan J Med Sci 2018; 34(4):1019.
[3] Jiang J, Ma D, Li B, Yue Y, Xue F. Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care J. 2017; 21(1):288.
[4] Arulkumaran N, Lowe J, Ions R, Mendoza M, Bennett V, Dunser MW. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(4):712-24.
[5] Chang DW, White G, Waugh J, Restrepo R. Respiratory Critical Care: principle and practice, 2Ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020.
[6] 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(3):369-83.
[7] Nausheen F, Niknafs NP, MacLean DJ, Olvera DJ, Wolfe JR AC, Pennington TW, et al. The HEAVEN criteria predict laryngoscopic view and intubation success for both direct and video laryngoscopy: a cohort analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 27, 50 (2019).
[8] Soltani Mohammadi S, Saliminia A, Nejatifard N, Azma R. Usefulness of Ultrasound View of Larynx in Pre-Anesthetic Airway Assessment: A Comparison With Cormack-Lehane Classification During Direct Laryngoscopy. Anesth Pain Med. 2016; 6(6):e39566.
[9] Khan ZH, Eskandari S, Yekaninejad MS. A comparison of the Mallampati test in supine and upright positions with and without phonation in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation: A prospective study. J Anesthesiology Clin Pharmacol. 2015; 31(2):207-11.
[10] Sakles JC, Mosier J, Chiu S, Cosentino M, Kalin L. A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60(6):739-48.
[11] Greenland KB, Segal R, Acott C, Edwards MJ, Teoh WH, Bradley WP. Observations on the assessment and optimal use of videolaryngoscopes. Anesth Intens Care. 2012; 40(4):622-30.
[12] Kriege M, Alflen C, Tzanova I, Schmidtmann I, Piepho T, Noppens RR. Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol. BMJ open. 2017; 7(8):e016907.
[13] Baliarsing L, Gore M, Akulwar P. Comparison of Glottis View and Hemodynamic Response by using Macintosh and MacCoy Laryngoscopes for Endotracheal Intubation in General Anaesthesia for Elective Surgery. J Contemp Med Research. 2016; 3(8):2186-8.
[14] Pieters BM, Eindhoven GB, Acott C, Van Zundert AA. Pioneers of laryngoscopy: indirect, direct and video laryngoscopy. Anesth Intens Care. 2015; 43(1_suppl):4-11.
[15] Paolini JB, Donati F, Drolet P. Video-laryngoscopy: another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management?. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60(2):184-91.
[16] Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116(3):629-36.
[17] Silverberg MJ, Li N, Acquah SO, Kory PD. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med J. 2015; 43(3):636-41.
[18] Ludwin K, Bialka S, Czyzewski L, Smereka J, Dabrowski M, Dabrowska A, et al. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disaster Emerg Med J. 2020; 5(2):85-97
[19] Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116(3):629-36.
[20] Trimmel H, Kreutziger J, Fitzka R, Szüts S, Derdak C, Koch E, et al. Use of the GlideScope ranger video laryngoscope for emergency intubation in the prehospital setting: a randomized control trial. Critical Care Medicine. 2016; 44(7): e470–e476.
[21] Okamoto H, Goto T, Wong ZS, Hagiwara Y, Watase H, Hasegawa K. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department patients with cardiac arrest: A multicentre study. Resuscitation J. 2019; 136:70-7.
[22] Maassen R, Lee R, Hermans B, Marcus M, van Zundert A. A comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: the Macintosh laryngoscope blade reduces, but does not replace, routine stylet use for intubation in morbidly obese patients. Anesth Analg. 2009; 109(5):1560-5.
[23] Kim JW, Park SO, Lee KR, Hong DY, Baek KJ, Lee YH, Lee JH, Choi PC. Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy: Which should be chosen for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective randomized controlled study of experienced intubators. Resuscitation. 2016; 105:196-202.
[24] Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 114(2):181-3.
[25] Gill RL, Jeffrey AS, McNarry AF, Liew GH. The Availability of Advanced Airway Equipment and Experience with Videolaryngoscopy in the UK: Two UK Surveys. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2015; 2015:152014.
[26] Aggarwal H, Kaur S, Baghla N, Kaur S. Hemodynamic response to orotracheal intubation: Comparison between Macintosh, McCoy, and C-MAC video laryngoscope. Anesth Essays Res. 2019; 13(2):308-12.
[27] Hall D, Steel A, Heij R, Eley A, Young P. Videolaryngoscopy increases ‘mouth‐to‐mouth’distance compared with direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2020; 75(6):822-3.
[28] Maldini B, Hodžović I, Goranović T, Mesarić J. Challenges in the use of video laryngoscopes Acta Clin Croat. 2016; 55(Supplement 1):41-50.
[29] Gordon JK, Bertram VE, Cavallin F, Parotto M, Cooper RM. Direct versus indirect laryngoscopy using a Macintosh video laryngoscope: a mannequin study comparing applied forces. Can J Anaesth. 2020; 67(5):515-520. English.
[30] Driver BE, Prekker ME, Moore JC, Schick AL, Reardon RF, Miner JR. Direct versus video laryngoscopy using the C‐MAC for tracheal intubation in the emergency department, a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med J. 2016; 23(4):433-9.
[31] Pieters BMA, Maas EHA, Knape JTA, van Zundert AAJ. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2017; 72(12):1532-1541.
[32] Russell TM, Hormis A, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust. Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literatureJ Perioper Pract. 2018; 28(12):322-33.
[33] Breeman W, Van Vledder MG, Verhofstad MH, Visser A, Van Lieshout EM. First attempt success of video versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation by ambulance nurses: a prospective observational study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020; 46(5):1039-1045.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 7 No 4 (2021): Autumn |
|
| Section | Review Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v7i4.7634 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Direct laryngoscopy Videolaryngoscope Endotracheal intubation Glottis visualization | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
