McGrath®series 5 videolaryngoscope evaluation for double-lumen tube intubation

Recent Advances in Videolaryngoscopy for One-Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Since their advent, videolaryngoscopes have played an important role in various types of airway management. Lung isolation techniques are often required for thoracic surgery to achieve one-lung ventilation with a double-lumen tube (DLT) or bronchial blocker (BB). In the case of difficult airways, one-lung ventilation is extremely challenging. The purpose of this review is to identify the roles of videolaryngoscopes in thoracic airway management, including normal and difficult airways. Extensive literature related to videolaryngoscopy and one-lung ventilation was analyzed. We summarized videolaryngoscope-guided DLT intubation techniques and discussed the roles of videolaryngoscopy in DLT intubation in normal airways by comparison with direct laryngoscopy. The different types of videolaryngoscopes for DLT intubation are also compared. In addition, we highlighted several strategies to achieve one-lung ventilation in difficult airways using videolaryngoscopes. A non-channeled or channeled videolaryngoscope is suitable for DLT intubation. It can improve glottis exposure and increase the success rate at the first attempt, but it has no advantage in saving intubation time and increases the incidence of DLT mispositioning. Thus, it is not considered as the first choice for patients with anticipated normal airways. Current evidence did not indicate the superiority of any videolaryngoscope to another for DLT intubation. The choice of videolaryngoscope is based on individual experience, preference, and availability. For patients with difficult airways, videolaryngoscope-guided DLT intubation is a primary and effective method. In case of failure, videolaryngoscope-guided single-lumen tube (SLT) intubation can often be achieved or combined with the aid of fibreoptic bronchoscopy. Placement of a DLT over an airway exchange catheter, inserting a BB via an SLT, or capnothorax can be selected for lung isolation.

Lung Isolation in the Patient With a Difficult Airway

One-lung ventilation is routinely used to facilitate exposure for thoracic surgical procedures and can be achieved via several lung isolation techniques. The optimal method for lung isolation depends on a number of factors that include (1) the indication for lung isolation, (2) anatomic features of the upper and lower airway, (3) availability of equipment and devices, and (4) the anesthesiologist's proficiency and preferences. Though double-lumen endobronchial tubes (DLTs) are most commonly utilized to achieve lung isolation, the use of endobronchial blockers offer advantages in patients with challenging airway anatomy. Anesthesiologists should be familiar with existing alternatives to the DLT for lung isolation and alternative techniques for DLT placement in the patient with a difficult airway. Newer technologies such as videolaryngoscopy with or without adjunctive fiberoptic bronchoscopy may facilitate intubation and lung isolation in difficult airway management.

Videolaryngoscopy vs. Macintosh laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Double-lumen intubation is more difficult than single-lumen tracheal intubation. Videolaryngoscopes have many advantages in airway management. However, the advantages of videolaryngoscopy for intubation with a double-lumen tube remain controversial compared with traditional Macintosh laryngoscopy. In this study, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials comparing videolaryngoscopy with Macintosh laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation. We found that videolaryngoscopy provided a higher success rate at first attempt for double-lumen tube intubation, with an odds ratio (95%CI) of 2.77 (1.92-4.00) (12 studies, 1215 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p < 0.00001), as well as a lower incidence of oral, mucosal or dental injuries during double-lumen tube intubation, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.36 (0.15-0.85) (11 studies, 1145 patients, low-quality evidence, p = 0.02), and for postoperative sore throat, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.54 (0.36-0.81) (7 studies, 561 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p = 0.003), compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy. There were no significant differences in intubation time, with a standardised mean difference (95%CI) of -0.10 (-0.62 to 0.42) (14 studies, 1310 patients, very low-quality evidence, p = 0.71); and the incidence of postoperative voice change, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.53 (0.21-1.31) (7 studies, 535 patients, low-quality evidence, p = 0.17). Videolaryngoscopy led to a higher incidence of malpositioned double-lumen tube, with an odds ratio (95%CI) of 2.23 (1.10-4.52) (six studies, 487 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p = 0.03).

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown Airtraq videolaryngoscope provided faster tracheal intubation and a higher success rate than other videolaryngoscopes. Recently, different types of videolaryngoscopes have been reported for use in double-lumen tube (DLT) intubation. However, the advantages and disadvantages between them remain undetermined for DLT intubation. In this study, we compared the Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope with the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope for DLT intubation by experienced anesthesiologists.

METHODS

Ninety patients with expected normal airways were randomly allocated to either the Airtraq or McGrath group. The primary outcome was DLT intubation time. The secondary outcomes were glottic view, success rate, subjective ease of intubation (100-mm visual analog scale, 0 = easy; 100 = difficult), incidence of DLT malposition, and postoperative intubation-related complication.

RESULTS

The airway characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Cormack and Lehane grades significantly improved with the use of the McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes, compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The intubation success rate on the first attempt was 93% in the Airtraq group and 95% in the McGrath group (P > 0.05). The intubation time in the McGrath group is longer than that in the Airtraq group (39.9 [9.1]s vs 28.6 [13.6]s, P < 0.05). But intubation difficulty score, the incidence of DLT malposition and intubation-related complication were comparable between groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When using videolaryngoscopes for DLT intubation, the Airtraq DL is superior to the McGrath Series 5 in intubation time, but it does not decrease intubation difficulty.

Videolaryngoscopes for placement of double lumen tubes: Is it time to say goodbye to direct view?

The advances in thoracic procedures require optimum lung separation to provide adequate room for surgical access. This can be achieved using either a double-lumen tube (DLT) or a bronchial blocker (BB). Most thoracic anesthesiologists prefer the use of DLT. However, lung separation in patients with potential difficult airway can be achieved using either BB through a single lumen tube or placement of a DLT over a tube exchanger or a fiberoptic bronchoscope. Numerous videolaryngoscopes (VL) have been introduced offering both optical and video options to visualize the glottis. Many studies reported improved glottis visualization and easier DLT intubation in patients with normal and potential difficult airway. However, these studies have a wide diversity of outcomes, which may be attributed to the differences in their designs and the prior experience of the operators in using the different devices. In the present review, we present the main outcomes of the available publications, which have addressed the use of VL-guided DLT intubation. Currently, there is enough evidence supporting using VL for DLT intubation in patients with predicted and unanticipated difficult airway. In conclusion, the use of VL could offer an effective method of DLT placement for lung separation in patients with the potential difficult airway.