• Mami Shimada, Yoshihiro Hirabayashi, and Norimasa Seo.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke 329-0498.
• Masui. 2010 Oct 1;59(10):1318-20.

BackgroundWe compared the performance of GlideScope videolaryngoscope with that of the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation by non-anesthesia residents.MethodsForty patients requiring nasal endotracheal intubation for surgical convenience were allocated to intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope. Each intubation was performed by non-anesthesia residents.ResultsThe time to secure the airway was shorter with GlideScope laryngoscopy than with the Macintosh laryngoscopy. Magill forceps were not needed for any patient during GlideScope videolaryngoscopy, while Macintosh laryngoscopy required Magill forceps utilization for 75% of the patients.ConclusionsThe unobstructed view of the glottic opening on the video monitor helped the laryngoscopist performing the nasal endotracheal intubation while an assistant provided laryngeal manipulation to improve the coordinated effort. GlideScope seems to facilitate nasotracheal intubation for individuals training in airway management.

11 keywords...

hide…