• Ruchi Bhola, Swaran Bhalla, Radha Gupta, Ishwar Singh, and Sunil Kumar.
• Department of Anaesthesiology, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
• Indian J Anaesth. 2014 May 1;58(3):269-74.

Background And AimsLiterature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope and Truview(®) in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated cervical spine injury using manual in-line stabilisation.MethodsThis prospective randomised study was undertaken in operation theatre of a tertiary referral centre after approval from the Institutional Review Board. A total of 100 consenting patients presenting for elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope (n = 50) or Truview(®) (n = 50) laryngoscope. In all patients, we applied manual-in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine throughout the airway management. Statistical testing was conducted with the statistical package for the social science system version SPSS 17.0. Demographic data, airway assessment and haemodynamics were compared using the Chi-square test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe time to successful intubation was less with McGrath video laryngoscope when compared to Truview (30.02 s vs. 38.72 s). However, there was no significant difference between laryngoscopic views obtained in both groups. The number of second intubation attempts required and incidence of complications were negligible with both devices. Success rate of intubation with both devices was 100%. Intubation with McGrath Video laryngoscope caused lesser alterations in haemodynamics.ConclusionsBoth laryngoscopes are reliable in case of simulated cervical spine injury using manual-in-line stabilisation with 100% success rate and good glottic view.

3 keywords...

hide…