• Gayatri Mishra, Varghese Mammen Philip, Vadlamudi Reddy Hemanth Kumar, and Thiyagarajan Sivashanmugam.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed-to be- University), Puducherry, India.
• Anesth Essays Res. 2018 Apr 1; 12 (2): 581-585.

BackgroundSeveral video laryngoscopes had demonstrated their superiority over conventional oral and nasal intubation techniques. King Vision video laryngoscope has fewer studies supporting its suitability for oral intubations. However, its suitability as a nasal intubating device has not been yet evaluated. We evaluated the suitability of King Vision video laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation comparing with TruviewPCD.MethodsEighty American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II elective surgical patients were studied. After meeting the inclusion criteria, 80 study subjects were randomized into two groups. Group T were intubated using TruviewPCD and Group K were intubated with the nonchanneled King Vision video laryngoscope. Our primary outcome was single successful nasotracheal intubation without use of any additional maneuvers. The time taken for intubation, use of additional maneuverers, Cormack-Lehane grading, and hemodynamics were also analyzed.ResultsSeventy-one patients (88.75%) were successfully intubated in a single attempt, i.e. 35 patients (90%) in Group K and 36 patients (87.5%) in Group T. Intubation time (mean ± standard deviation) was 67.9 ± 24.1 s in Group T and 64.9 ± 20.0 s in Group K where comparison was not statistically significant (P = 0.5). The additional maneuvers (P = 0.2) and hemodynamic changes were not clinically significant. There were no associated serious complications.ConclusionKing Vision video laryngoscope is just as effective as TruviewPCD video laryngoscope for successful nasotracheal intubation.

3 keywords...

hide…