• Ibtihal S Abdelgadir, Robert S Phillips, Davinder Singh, Michael P Moncreiff, and Joanne L Lumsden.
• Paediatrics, Sidra Medical and Research Center, PO Box 26999, Doha, Qatar.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2017 May 24; 5 (5): CD011413CD011413.

BackgroundDirect laryngoscopy is the method currently used for tracheal intubation in children. It occasionally offers unexpectedly poor laryngeal views. Indirect laryngoscopy involves visualizing the vocal cords by means other than obtaining a direct sight, with the potential to improve outcomes. We reviewed the current available literature and performed a meta-analysis to compare direct versus indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, with regards to efficacy and adverse effects.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation of children with regards to intubation time, number of attempts at intubation, and adverse haemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation. We also assessed other adverse responses to intubation, such as trauma to oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal structures, and we assessed vocal cord view scores.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and trial registers (www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlledtrials) in November 2015. We reran the search in January 2017. We added new studies of potential interest to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update. We performed reference checking and citation searching and contacted the authors of unpublished data to ask for more information. We applied no language restrictions.Selection CriteriaWe included only randomized controlled trials. Participants were children aged 28 days to 18 years. Investigators performed intubations using any type of indirect laryngoscopes, or videolaryngoscopes, versus direct laryngoscopes.Data Collection And AnalysisWe used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. Two review authors independently reviewed titles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.Main ResultsWe included 12 studies (803 children) in this review and meta-analysis. We identified three studies that are awaiting classification and two ongoing studies.Trial results show that a longer intubation time was required when indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, was used instead of direct laryngoscopy (12 trials; n = 798; mean difference (MD) 5.49 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 9.60; I2 = 90%; very low-quality evidence). Researchers found no significant differences between direct and indirect laryngoscopy on assessment of success of the first attempt at intubation (11 trials; n = 749; risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; I2 = 67%; low-quality evidence) and observed that unsuccessful intubation (five trials; n = 263) was significantly increased in the indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, group (RR 4.93, 95% CI 1.33 to 18.31; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Five studies reported the effect of intubation on oxygen saturation (n = 272; very low-quality evidence). Five children had desaturation during intubation: one from the direct laryngoscopy group and four from the indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, group.Two studies (n = 100) reported other haemodynamic responses to intubation (very low-quality evidence). One study reported a significant increase in heart rate five minutes after intubation in the indirect laryngoscopy group (P = 0.007); the other study found that the heart rate change in the direct laryngoscopy group was significantly less than the heart rate change in the indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, group (P < 0.001). A total of five studies (n = 244; very low-quality evidence) looked at evidence of trauma resulting from intubation. Investigators reported that only two children from the direct laryngoscopy group had trauma compared with no children in the indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, group.Use of indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, improved the percentage of glottic opening (five trials; n = 256). Studies noted no significant difference in Cormack and Lehane score (C&L) grade 1 (three trials; n = 190; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; I2 = 59%).Authors' ConclusionsEvidence suggests that indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, leads to prolonged intubation time with an increased rate of intubation failure when compared with direct laryngoscopy (very low-quality evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations). Review authors had difficulty reaching conclusions on adverse haemodynamic responses and other adverse effects of intubation, as only a few children were reported to have these outcomes. Use of indirect laryngoscopy, or videolaryngoscopy, might lead to improved vocal cord view, but marked heterogeneity between studies made it difficult for review authors to reach conclusions on this outcome.

This article appears in the collection: Are video laryngoscopes superior to standard laryngoscopy?.

21 keywords...

hide…