Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study

Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review

Videolaryngoscopes (VLs) have emerged as a safety net offering several advantages over direct laryngoscopy (DL). The aim of this study is to expand on our previous study conducted in 2016, to deduce which VL is most preferred by clinicians and to highlight any changes that may have occurred over the past 7 years. An extensive systematic literature review was performed on Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Studies for articles published between September 2016 and January 2023. This review highlighted similar results to our study in 2016, with the CMAC being the most preferred for non-channelled laryngoscopes, closely followed by the GlideScope. For channelled videolaryngoscopes, the Pentax AWS was the most clinically preferred. This review also highlighted that there are minimal studies that compare the most-used VLs, and thus we suggest that future studies directly compare the most-used and -preferred VLs as well as the specific nature of blades to attain more useful results.

Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization.

METHODS

A total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded.

RESULTS

The first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization.

CONCLUSIONS

 We conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubation with King Vision VL.

Comparison between C-MAC and King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) for tracheal intubation in aerosol-prevention intubation box for COVID-19 patients: A manikin-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of contracting infection while intubating a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive patient can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), video laryngoscope (VL) and aerosol-preventing intubation box. We compared two VLs (C-MAC and King Vision laryngoscope [KVL]) for ease of intubation and time taken to intubate the manikin using an intubation box.

METHODS

This randomised study involved healthcare workers having experience in using both C-MAC and KVL. After explaining the study and five practice sessions, a total of 63 volunteers were included; 61 participants gave consent and were enroled. The participants were allowed to intubate initially with one VL as per random sequence. Each participant performed three tracheal intubations with each device (C-MAC VL and KVL) on a manikin using an aerosol-prevention box over the head end at the time of intubation.

RESULTS

Time taken, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and the number of attempts taken for successful intubation with C-MAC and KVL were comparable in any of the three attempts (P > 0.05). The participants reported more difficulty in using KVL compared to C-MAC, and insertion of laryngoscope blade into the mouth of manikin for intubation was easy in group C-MAC compared to KVL in all three intubations (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

C-MAC and KVL take comparable time for successful intubation under COVID-19 simulation conditions. But C-MAC is more user-friendly.