Research Article

Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation (TTI) in Conventional Laryngoscope with Video Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation In Laproscopic Surgeries

Abstract

Background: Direct laryngoscopy necessitates the alignment of the oropharyngeal-laryngeal axis whereas video laryngoscope is an optical vision which doesn’t require alignment. This study aimed to compare direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade to King-Vision Video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients who were scheduled for elective laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia.
Methods: In this prospective randomised clinical study,118 adults with ASA I and II requiring endotracheal intubation for laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were enrolled and randomised into either of the two groups by envelope method, Group DL-direct laryngoscope and Group VL-video laryngoscope where they were intubated using direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blade or King Vision videolaryngoscope. The Primary objective was to compare Time to intubate(TTI), Visualization of the laryngeal view by Cormack-Lehane grade and Successful first attempt. Secondary objective was to record the Number of intubation failure, Number of attempts, Change of anaesthesiologist and use of adjunct equipment and the complications such as oropharyngeal trauma, neck pain, dysphagia and hoarseness.
Results: In comparison to group DL (21.67±4.318s), group VL took longer time to intubate (26.21± 4.150s) but had superior glottic vision than DL group(p=0.0177). Compared to DL group (72.4%), the VL (84.5%) patients had their first successful attempt, inspite of 2 failures. Complications such as pharyngeal pain (8.6%vs29.3%), hoarseness (5.2%vs29.3%), Use of adjunct equipment like bougie (19%vs 3.4%) were significantly higher in DL compared to VL group, while oropharyngeal injury, dysphagia, number of attempts and change of anaesthetists were similar in both groups.
Conclusion: In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, the King-vision VideoLaryngoscope took longer to intubate but had clearer glottis visualisation and a higher first-time success rate and can be used as a good teaching tool. In King-vision video laryngoscope, there was less use of auxiliary equipment and fewer complications.

[1] Hinkelbein J, Iovino I, De Robertis E, Kranke P. Outcomes in video laryngoscopy studies from 2007 to 2017: systematic review and analysis of primary and secondary endpoints for a core set of outcomes in video laryngoscopy research. BMC anesthesiology. 2019; 19(1):1-9.
[2] 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):369-383.
[3] Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dörges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010; 27(1):24-30.
[4] Elhadi SM, Rady WK, Elfadly AM. A comparative study between the macintosh laryngoscope and the king vision video laryngoscope in endotracheal intubation. Anaesth. Intensive Care Med. 2016; 3(4):168-172
[5] Dalvi NP, Sayed NI. Laryngoscopes. In: Baheti DK, Laheri VV(Eds). Understanding Anesthetic Equipment & Procedures. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2018. 145-60.
[6] Amir B. Channa.Video laryngoscopes. Saudi J Anaesthesia. 2011; 5(4): 357–359.
[7] Kriege M, Pirlich N, Ott T, Wittenmeier E, Dette F. A comparison of two hyperangulated video laryngoscope blades to direct laryngoscopy in a simulated infant airway: a bicentric, comparative, randomized manikin study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018; 18(1):1-9.
[8] Shimada N, Hayashi K, Sugimoto K, Takahashi M, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. [The KINGVISION: clinical assessment of performance in 50 patients]. Masui. 2013; 62(6):757-60.
[9] Piepho T, Fortmueller K, Heid FM, Schmidtmann I, Werner C, Noppens R. Performance of the C‐MAC video laryngoscope in patients after a limited glottic view using Macintosh laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66(12):1101-5.
[10] Patel B, Surti J, Jani P, Vachharajani P. A Comparison of Kings Vision Video Laryngoscope with Macintosh Laryngoscope in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedure. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 2018; 7(2):218-222.
[11] Nandakumar KP, Bhalla AP, Pandey RK, Baidya DK, Subramaniam R, Kashyap L. Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, and Glidescope video laryngoscope for intubation in morbidly obese patients: Randomized controlled trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2018; 12(3):433-439.
[12] Liu DX, Ye Y, Zhu YH, Li J, He HY, Dong L, et al. Intubation of non-difficult airways using video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a randomized, parallel-group study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019; 19(1):75.
[13] Erdivanli B, Sen A, Batcik S, Koyuncu T, Kazdal H. Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial Bras. Anestesiol. 2018; 68(5):499-506.
[14] Ibinson JW, Ezaru CS, Cormican DS, Mangione MP. GlideScope Use improves intubation success rates: an observational study using propensity score matching. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014; 14:101.
[15] 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(5):556-64.
[16] Kaki AM, AlMarkabi WA, Fawzi HM, Boker AM. Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and Glidescope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical students’ hands: A manikin study. Saudi J Anaesthesia. 2011; 5:576–381.
[17] Carassiti M, Zanzonico R, Cecchini S, Silvestri S, Cataldo R, Agrò FE. Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 108(1):146–151.
[18] Fiadjoe JE, Gurnaney H, Dalesio N, Sussman E, Zhao H, Zhang X, et al. Stricker; A Prospective Randomized Equivalence Trial of the GlideScope Cobalt® Video Laryngoscope to Traditional Direct Laryngoscopy in Neonates and Infants. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116(3):622–628.
[19] Mallick T, Verma A, Jaiswal S, Haldar M, Sheikh WR, Vishen A, et al. Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study. Turk J Emerg Med. 2020; 20(1): 22–27.
Files
IssueVol 10 No 1 (2024): Winter QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v10i1.14776
Keywords
Direct laryngoscopy videolaryngoscope time to intubate king vision
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Pillai L, Mulimani S, Suntan A, Dandoti D. Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation (TTI) in Conventional Laryngoscope with Video Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation In Laproscopic Surgeries. Arch Anesth & Crit Care. 2023;10(1):75-81.