A Non-Inferiority Study of the Speed and Success of Nasotracheal Intubation in Maxillofacial Surgeries Using Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope versus Sanyar® Video Laryngoscope
Abstract
Background: The recently developed blade design of the Sanyar® video laryngoscope yields an exceptionally precise visualization of the larynx, thereby easing the process of tracheal intubation.
Objectives: A non-inferiority clinical investigation, to assess the efficacy of the Sanyar® as compared to the Macintosh® direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in the context of maxillofacial surgeries.
Methods: 78 patients for maxillofacial surgery were divided randomly into two groups and intubated through the nose using either the Sanyar® or Macintosh® laryngoscope after anesthesia was induced. The study measured intubation time and secondary objectives included success rate, attempts, and hemodynamic changes in two groups.
Results: 40 eligible patients in the Sanyar® and 38 in the Macintosh® group were involved. Of all, 42(53.8%) were men and 36(46.2%) were women. The average age of patients in the Sanyar® and Mackintosh groups was (31.62±13.41) and (30.81±10.89), respectively. 39(98%) of the Sanyar® group and 33(86%) of the Macintosh® group had successful laryngoscopy and intubation, with a P-value<0.034. Sanyar® group had a significantly shorter intubation time than Macintosh® (P-value<0.001). Hemodynamic changes before and after laryngoscopy and intubation had no significant differences between the two groups.
Conclusion: The Sanyar® video laryngoscope reduced the time of nasal tracheal intubation in maxillofacial surgery compared to direct laryngoscopy and improved the success rate of the first intubation attempt.
[2] Pourfakhr P, Mirzaie MA, Etezadi F, Shariat Moharrari R, Khajavi MR. Evaluation of the success rate and quality of teaching of tracheal intubation to medical students by using video laryngoscope. Tehran University Medical Journal TUMS Publications. 2022; 79(12):951-7.
[3] Collins SR. Direct and Indirect Laryngoscopy: Equipment and Techniques Discussion. Respiratory care. 2014; 59(6):850-64.
[4] Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video‐laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010; 54(9):1050-61.
[5] Paolini JB, François Donati MD, Drolet P. video-laryngoscopy: another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management?. Can J Anaesth. 2013; 60(2):184-91.
[6] Ghodki P, Kulkarni P, Prabhu A, Dhamdhere A. Comparison of Truview® Video Laryngoscopy with Conventional Macintosh Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Anesth & Crit Care. 2022; 8(Supplement):370-376.
[7] Su YC, Chen CC, Lee YK, Lee JY, Lin KJ. Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. European Journal of Anaesthesiology| EJA. 2011; 28(11):788-95.
[8] Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC, Hoogstra J, et al. A comparison of GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2008; 107:144–8
[9] Khajavi MR, Mohammadyousefi R, Neishaboury M, Moharari RS, Etezadi F, Pourfakhr P. Early clinical experience with a new video laryngoscope (SANYAR®) for tracheal intubation in adults: a comparison clinical study. Frontiers in Emergency Medicine. 2022; 6(3):e35.
[10] Ambulkar R, Ranganathan P, Savarkar S, Divatia JV. A randomized controlled trial comparing McGRATH series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 36(4):477-82.
[11] Gupta N, Gupta A, Sarma R, Batra A, Madan K. Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation in oromaxillofacial surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2021; 74(5):439-48.
[12] Roh GU, Kwak HJ, Lee KC, Lee SY, Kim JY. Randomized comparison of McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope, and Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with manual in-line stabilization. Can J Anaesth. 2019; 66(10):1213-20.
[13] Ho CH, Chen LC, Hsu WH, Lin TY, Lee M, Lu CW. A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(9):2499.
[14] Altaiee AH, Hassen HA, Fadeel SJ. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy on time of orotracheal intubation in normal adult in elective surgeries. Medical Science. 2020; 24(106):4264-9.
[15] King BJ, Padnos I, Mancuso K, Christensen BJ. Comparing Video and Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation. Anesthesia Progress. 2020;67(4):193-9.
[16] Zhu H, Liu J, Suo L, Zhou C, Sun Y, Jiang H. A randomized controlled comparison of non-channeled king vision, McGrath MAC video laryngoscope and Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations. BMC anesthesiology. 2019; 19:1-9.
[17] Mishra G, Philip VM, Kumar VR, Sivashanmugam T. Suitability of nasotracheal intubation using King Vision and TruviewPCD video laryngoscopes: A randomized clinical trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2018; 12(2):581-5.
Files | ||
Issue | Vol 10 No 3 (2024): Summer | |
Section | Research Article(s) | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v10i3.15687 | |
Keywords | ||
Nasotracheal-Endotracheal intubation Airway management Direct laryngoscopy Sanyar® Video laryngoscopy Maxillofacial surgery |
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |