• Philip M Jones, Timothy P Turkstra, Kevin P Armstrong, Paidrig M Armstrong, and Christopher C Harle.
• Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. philip.jones@lhsc.on.ca
• Can J Anaesth. 2010 Jan 1;57(1):18-23.

BackgroundThis study was conceived to compare the single-use GlideScope Cobalt videolaryngoscope with the conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation, as judged by time to intubation (TTI) and ease of intubation.MethodsOne hundred patients with normal-appearing airways requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to have their tracheas intubated by a heterogeneous group of operators with the Cobalt GlideScope or the conventional GlideScope. TTI was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the start of laryngoscopy. A visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, and fogging of the video screen were recorded.ResultsThere was no difference between the median TTI of the GlideScope Cobalt and the conventional GlideScope (40.1 sec, interquartile range [IQR] 34.1, 51.3 vs 39 sec, IQR 32.6, 48.1, respectively; P = 0.75). The ease of intubation was similar between the two devices (median Cobalt VAS: 16 mm, IQR 10.8, 27.3, vs median conventional VAS: 12.5 mm, IQR 10, 20.5, respectively; P = 0.12). There were no significant differences between the two devices with respect to glottic exposure, intubation attempts, failures, or video screen fogging.ConclusionsThe GlideScope Cobalt has similar performance characteristics compared with the conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscope when used for orotracheal intubation. The two devices can likely be used interchangeably. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00459797.).

17 keywords...

hide…