• Yoshihiro Hirabayashi, Hiroshi Hoshijima, Norifumi Kuratani, and Eiji Masaki.
• Department of Anesthesiology, International University of Health and Welfare Hospital, Nasushiobara 329-2763.
• Masui. 2013 Nov 1;62(11):1375-9.

BackgroundIncreased evidence indicates that the videolaryngoscope is useful for nasotracheal intubation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of videolaryngoscopes (Glidescope, Airtraq and Pentax-AWS) in nasotracheal intubations, comparing with that of Macintosh laryngoscopy.MethodsThe systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 2.2.040 software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials included 294 tracheal intubations by videolaryngoscopes and 253 tracheal intubations by Macintosh laryngoscopy. Videolaryngoscopes showed higher success rate (RR 1.116, 95% CI 1.021-1.220, P < 0.0155, I2 : 51%) and shorter intubation time (MD -11.9 sec, 95% CI-18.9(-) -5.0 sec, P < 0.0008, I2 84%) compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis showed that the videolaryngoscope has an advantage over Macintosh laryngoscope in nasotracheal intubations.

9 keywords...

hide…