• Y Lim and S W Yeo.
• Department of Anaesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
• Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005 Apr 1; 33 (2): 243-7.

AbstractWe compared the use of the GlideScope and the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway. The primary hypothesis was that time to intubation would be shorter using the GlideScope than using the Macintosh laryngoscope. After obtaining approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent, we recruited 60 ASA 1 and 2 patients to our randomized controlled trial. Group G (n = 30) had tracheal intubation performed using the GlideScope and Group M (n = 30) were intubated using a Macintosh laryngoscope. We simulated a difficult airway in each patient by having an experienced assistant provide in-line manual stabilization of the head and neck. We recorded the best laryngeal view; difficulty of the tracheal intubation; time taken for successful tracheal intubation; manoeuvre needed to aid tracheal intubation and complications associated with the tracheal intubation. The median Cormack and Lehane grade was significantly better in Group G than Group M. Group G had a significantly shorter intubation time than group M (mean 41.8s +/- SD 20.2 vs mean 56.2s +/- 26.6, P < 0.05). The GlideScope improved the laryngeal view and decreased time for tracheal intubation time when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with simulated difficult airway. The GlideScope may be a good alternative for managing the difficult airway but clinical trials evaluating its use on patients with an actual difficult airway are needed.

8 keywords...

hide…