A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways.
10.4097/kjae.2011.60.5.339
- Author:
Guen Seok CHOI
1
;
Eun Ha LEE
;
Chae Seong LIM
;
Seok Hwa YOON
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea. seohwy@cnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Glidescope;
Intubation;
Macintosh laryngoscope
- MeSH:
Anesthesia;
Humans;
Intubation;
Intubation, Intratracheal;
Laryngoscopes;
Vocal Cords
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2011;60(5):339-343
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The Glidescope Videolaryngoscope (GVL) is a newly developed video laryngoscope. It offers a significantly improved laryngeal view and facilitates endotracheal intubation in difficult airways, but it is controversial in that it offers an improved laryngeal view in normal airways as well. And the price of GVL is expensive. We hypothesized that intubation carried out by fully experienced anesthesiologists using the GVL with appropriate pre-anesthetic preparations offers an improved laryngeal view and shortened intubation time in normal airways. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the GVL with the Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airways and to determine whether GVL can substitute the Macintosh laryngoscope. METHODS: This study included 60 patients with an ASA physical status of class 1 or 2 requiring tracheal intubation for elective surgery. All patients were randomly allocated into two groups, GVL (group G) or Macintosh (group M). ADS (airway difficulty score) was recorded before induction of anesthesia. The anesthesiologist scored vocal cord visualization using the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) visible and the subjective ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The time required to intubate was recorded by an assistant. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in POGO when using the GVL (P < 0.05). However, there was no difference in the time required for a successful tracheal intubation using the GVL compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The VAS score on the ease of intubation was significantly lower for the GVL than for the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GVL could be a first-line tool in normal airways.
