• Can J Anaesth · Jul 2020

    The videoscopic view may not be significantly superior to the directly sighted peroral view during Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopy: a randomized equivalence cadaver trial.

    • Gemma Malpas, George Kovacs, Sean P Mackinnon, Orlando Hung, Sarah Phipps, and J Adam Law.
    • Department of Adult and Emergency Anesthesia, Level 8, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland District Health Board, 2 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand. gmalpas@icloud.com.
    • Can J Anaesth. 2020 Jul 1; 67 (7): 827-835.

    PurposeVideolaryngoscopy is widely believed to give a superior view to that obtained by direct laryngoscopy. Published literature suggests this benefit extends to both hyper-angulated and Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopes. Notwithstanding, our clinical experience shows that the videoscopic view with a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope is often no different or only marginally better than the directly sighted peroral view.MethodsA human cadaver equivalence study was performed in which four experienced laryngoscopists obtained pre-assigned laryngeal views by direct sighting using the single-use Macintosh blades of the GlideScope® Spectrum™ (GS) DirectView Macintosh (DVM) and C-MAC®S videolaryngoscopes. Blinded to the laryngoscopist's view, two independent observers rated the videoscopic view presented on the proximal video monitor at the same time. Directly sighted and videoscopic views obtained by the laryngoscopist and video scorers were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for each device as the primary outcome measures and compared.ResultsOn the VAS, the C-MAC®S videoscopic view revealed only approximately 0.9% more (99% confidence interval [CI], -2.5% to 4.3%) of the laryngeal inlet than the directly sighted view. Using GS DVM, the videoscopic view revealed 6.7% (99% CI, 2.3% to 11.0%) more of the laryngeal inlet than the directly sighted view. Although results for the GS DVM achieved statistical significance, neither device gave a clinically significantly improved videoscopic view compared with the directly sighted peroral view.ConclusionThis study failed to corroborate previously published findings of a clinically significantly improved videoscopic view compared with direct peroral sighting using Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopes. Further study of this class of device is warranted in human subjects.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…