A Comparison of Glide Scope Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation

Authors

  • Taimur Azam Khan Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Syed Qasim Ali Shah Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Mirza Hamid Beg Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Osama Abdul Mateen Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Muhammad Huzaifa Sharif Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
  • Syed Rafat Ali Hashmi Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v73i6.10056

Keywords:

Glottic grade, Nasotracheal intubation, Laryngoscope

Abstract

Objective: To compare the ease of intubation using glide scope video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy for
nasotracheal intubation.

Study Design: Quasi experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, Aug 2022 to Feb 2023.

Methodology: Patients of either gender with age greater than 18 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)
Grade I or Grade II planned for elective dental or maxillofacial procedures requiring nasotracheal intubation were included. A total of 60 patients were included, with 30 patients in each group. Recorded variables were time to intubate, glottic grade, use of Magill forceps, first attempt success, failure to intubate and postoperative sore throat.

Results: With 60 patients after randomised allocation, 30 were allocated to Group-DL (Direct laryngoscopy) and Group-VL
(Video laryngoscopy). The success rate in the first attempt was 27(90%) in Group-DL vs 30 (100%) in Group-VL, and the
number of patients who could not be intubated was 1(3.3%) vs 0(0%) in both groups. The glottic grade recorded by the
operator under vision, time to intubation, use of Magill forceps and post-operative sore throat in both groups was significant with a p-value of <0.05.

Conclusion: Glide scope video laryngoscopy provides a better view of the vocal cords with less time to intubation, greater
chances of successful intubation, and fewer post-operative chances of sore throat than direct laryngoscopy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Şahiner Y. Indications for endotracheal intubation. Tracheal

Intubation. Chapter-3; IntechOpen Publishing, 2018.http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76172.

Downey AW, Duggan LV, Adam Law J. A systematic review of

meta-analyses comparing direct laryngoscopy with

videolaryngoscopy. Can J Anesth 2021; 68(5): 706-714.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-01921-7.

Kim DS, Jeong D, Park JE, Lee GT, Shin TG, Chang H, et al.

Endotracheal Intubation Using C-MAC Video Laryngoscope vs.

Direct Laryngoscope While Wearing Personal Protective

Equipment. J Personal Med 2022; 12(10): 1720.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101720.

Zewdie A, Tagesse D, Alemayehu S, Getachew T, Sultan M. The

success rate of endotracheal intubation in the emergency

department of tertiary care hospital in ethiopia, One-Year

retrospective study. Emerg Med Int 2021: 2021: 9590859.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9590859.

Stein M, Park RS, Kovatsis PG. Emerging trends, techniques, and

equipment for airway management in pediatric patients. Pediatr

Anesth 2020; 30(3): 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.13814.

Macke C, Gralla F, Winkelmann M, Clausen JD, Haertle M,

Krettek C, et al. Increased first pass success with C-MAC

videolaryngoscopy in prehospital endotracheal intubation—a

randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med 2020; 9(9): 2719.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092719

Alhomary M, Ramadan E, Curran E, Walsh SR.

Videolaryngoscopy vs. fibreoptic bronchoscopy for awake

tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.

Anaesthesia 2018 ;73(9):1151-1161.

https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14299

Liao CC, Liu FC, Li AH, Yu HP. Video laryngoscopy-assisted

tracheal intubation in airway management. Expert Rev Med

Devices 2018 ;15(4):265-275.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2018.1448267

Dey S, Pradhan D, Saikia P, Bhattacharyya P, Khandelwal H,

Adarsha KN, et al. Intubation in the Intensive Care Unit: C-MAC

video laryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope. Med Inten

(English Edition) 2020; 44(3): 135-141.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2019.10.004

Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC,

Hoogstra J, et al. A comparison of GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth

Analg 2008; 107(1): 144-148.

https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9.

Mallick T, Verma A, Jaiswal S, Haldar M, Sheikh WR, Vishen A,

et al. Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal

intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision

video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective

observational study. Turk J Emerg Med 2020; 20(1): 22.

https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.276381.

Hoshijima H, Mihara T, Maruyama K, Denawa Y, Takahashi M,

Shiga T, et al. McGrath videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh

laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and

meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth 2018;

: 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.12.030.

Hoshijima H, Mihara T, Maruyama K, Denawa Y, Mizuta K,

Shiga T, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh

laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: a systematic review and

meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth 2018;

: 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.06.007.

Bankar P, Yadav R. Hemodynamic stress response in controlled

hypertensive patients: a randomized comparison of I-scope

video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope. Arch

Anesthesiol Crit Care 2022; 8(1): 11-17.

http://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v8i1.8238.

Aggarwal H, Kaur S, Baghla N, Kaur S. Hemodynamic response

to orotracheal intubation: Comparison between Macintosh,

McCoy, and C-MAC video laryngoscope. Anesth Essays Res

; 13(2): 308. https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_7_19.

Suzuki K, Kusunoki S, Tanigawa K, Shime N. Comparison of

three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for

emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study.

BMJ Open 2019; 9(3): e024927.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024927.

Russell TM, Hormis A, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust.

Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for

all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A

review of current literature. J Perioperat Pract 2018; 28(12): 322-

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750458918788985.

Aleksandrowicz D, Wieczorek A, Gaszynski T. Intubation with

cervical spine immobilisation: a comparison between the

KingVision videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope:

A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2018; 35(5):

-401. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000000693.

Kumar M, Gupta A, Mahajan H, Dhanerwa R, Chauhan P.

Intubation with King Vision® video laryngoscope and

Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical spine injured: A randomized

controlled trial. Indian Anaesth Forum 2019; 20(2): 89-94.

http://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_35_19.

Eberlein CM, Luther IS, Carpenter TA, Ramirez LD. First-pass

success intubations using video laryngoscopy versus direct

laryngoscopy: a retrospective prehospital ambulance service

study. Air Med J 2019; 38(5): 356-358.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2019.06.004.0.

Downloads

Published

30-12-2023

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

1.
Khan TA, Shah SQA, Beg MH, Mateen OA, Sharif MH, Hashmi SRA. A Comparison of Glide Scope Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation. Pak Armed Forces Med J [Internet]. 2023 Dec. 30 [cited 2024 Jun. 14];73(6):1711-5. Available from: https://pafmj.org/PAFMJ/article/view/10056