• Mansoor Aqil, Mueen Ullah Khan, Altaf Hussain, Rashid Saeed Khokhar, Saara Mansoor, and Tariq Alzahrani.
• Department of Anesthesiology, King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
• J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016 Apr 1; 26 (4): 245-9.

ObjectiveTo compare intubating conditions, success rate, and ease of intubation by anesthesia trainees using Glidescope Videolaryngoscope (GVL) compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL).Study DesignComparative study.Place And Duration Of StudyKing Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from January 2012 to February 2015.MethodologyEighty adult patients ASAI and II with normal airway, scheduled to undergo elective surgery requiring endotracheal (ET) intubation were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: GVL and MCL. All intubations were performed by trainee residents having experience of more than 1 year and who had successfully performed more than 50 tracheal intubations with each device. Glottic view based on Cormack and Lehane's (C&L's) score and percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score, time to successful intubation, need of external pressure, and overall difficulty scores were compared using either GVL or MCL.ResultsView of glottis based on C&L's classification was better (p < 0.001) and POGO score was higher (88.25 ±22.06 vs. 57.25 ±29.26, p < 0.001) with GVL compared to MCL. Time to intubate in seconds was (32.90 ±8.69 vs. 41.33 ±15.29, p = 0.004) and overall difficulty score was less 2.78 ±1.39 vs. 4.85 ±1.75 (p < 0.001) using GVL compared to MCL.ConclusionResidents found ET intubation to be faster and easier with superior glottic view using GVL compared to MCL in patients with normal airway.

27 keywords...

hide…