• Shadab Kamal, Qazi Ehsan Ali, Syed Hussain Amir, Sarfaraz Ahmed, and Krochi Pal.
• Dept of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal, Nehru Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh., U.P., India.
• J Clin Anesth. 2016 Nov 1; 34: 483-9.

Study ObjectiveAnticipated and unanticipated difficult airways are often encountered by anesthesiologists in their clinical practice. There are various devices available in such situations. We aim to compare King Vision video laryngoscope and Lightwand for their performance as an intubating device in predicted difficult intubation.DesignProspective, randomized, single blind study.SettingJawaharlal Nehru Medical College.PatientsSixty ASA 1 and 2 with Mallampati grade III and IV.InterventionsPatients were divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each. Patients of King Vision group [n=30] and Lightwand group [n=30] were intubated using respective devices. Primary outcome measure was time taken to intubate whereas secondary outcome measure ware number of attempts for intubation, no of adjustment maneuvers, changes in heart rate and mean arterial pressure and airway trauma.Measurements And Main ResultsMean intubation time using King Vision video laryngoscope (19.50±6.73 seconds was lower than the intubation time using Lightwand 25.40±7.42 s, P=.00). The difference between number of attempts, success of intubation, numbers of adjustment maneuvers were comparable. There was a significant rise in heart rate within the groups from the pre-induction values. However inter group variations were similar. In addition, there was a significant rise in mean arterial pressure within the groups from the pre-induction values. Inter group variations show less increase in mean arterial pressure with Lightwand at immediate post intubation (P=.0234) and at 3 min and 5 min post intubation anesthesia.Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

26 keywords...

hide…