• Ranju Singh, Nishant Kumar, and Aruna Jain.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Shrimati Sucheta Kriplani and Kalawati Saran Children's Hospitals, New Delhi, India.
• Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2015 Feb 19.

AimTo evaluate and compare the Truview picture capture device (PCD) and C-MAC laryngoscope to the standard Macintosh laryngoscope in pediatric patients.MethodsOne hundred and fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiology status Grade I-II (ASA I-II) who were 1-6 years old (10-20 kg) were scheduled for elective surgery. They were randomized into three equal groups for laryngoscopy and intubation by either the Truview PCD (Group T), C-MAC (Group C), or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group M) under general anesthesia. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, application of external laryngeal maneuver, time to intubation, number of attempts at intubation, failed intubations, episodes of desaturation, and trauma were recorded and statistically analyzed. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe POGO scores were significantly better with the Truview PCD (94.7 ± 12.91) than with the C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes (82 ± 24.97 and 85.1 ± 17.07, respectively; p < 0.01). There were no failures, episodes of desaturation, or trauma in any of the patients. It took 19.24 seconds to intubate with the Truview PCD, compared to 12.32 seconds with the C-MAC laryngoscope and 10.7 seconds with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.01). An external laryngeal maneuver was required in 42% of patients in group C, compared to 38% in Group M and 16% in group T (p < 0.01).ConclusionThe Truview PCD offers the best laryngeal view, although it takes a longer time for intubation. The C-MAC laryngoscope provides similar laryngeal views as the Macintosh blade, and is an excellent teaching aid.Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.

5 keywords...

hide…