A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the HugeMed video laryngoscope with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal tracheal intubation in children undergoing dental treatment: a randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the HugeMed® videolaryngoscope with a direct Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.

METHODS

Eighty-eight children aged 4-10 years were randomly assigned to either the HugeMed® videolaryngoscope (HVL) or the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MDL) group. Intubation difficulty, glottic view grade, time-to-intubation, number of tracheal intubation attempts, use of external laryngeal manipulation and Magill forceps, recovery time, pediatric-anesthesia-delirium-scale (PAEDS) scores, pain due to tracheal intubation, and laryngeal bleeding were evaluated.

RESULTS

Easy tracheal intubation incidence was higher in the HVL group than that in the MDL group (p = 0.001). Glottic view was better in the HVL group as compared to the MDL group (p = 0.027). There was no difference between the groups in terms of time-to-tracheal intubation, number of tracheal intubation attempts, Magill forceps usage, pain, and bleeding due to tracheal intubation. The need for external laryngeal manipulation (p = 0.004) and PAEDS scores (p = 0.006) were higher in the MDL group than those in the HVL group.

CONCLUSION

HugeMed® videolaryngoscope may provide easier tracheal intubation, create a better glottic view, and significantly reduce the need for additional manipulation compared to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope, for nasotracheal intubation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrial.gov identifier is NCT05121597.

Articulating Video Stylet Compared to Other Techniques for Endotracheal Intubation in Normal Airways: A Simulation Study in Consultants with No Prior Experience

Simulation for airway management allows for acquaintance with new devices and techniques. Endotracheal intubation (ETI), most commonly performed with direct laryngoscopy (DL) or video laryngoscopy (VLS), can be achieved also with combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation (CLBI). Finally, an articulating video stylet (ProVu) has been recently introduced. A single-center observational cross-sectional study was performed in a normal simulated airway scenario comparing DL, VLS-Glidescope, VLS-McGrath, CLBI and ProVu regarding the success rate (SR) and corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, which accounts for the SR). Up to three attempts/device were allowed (maximum of 60 s each). Forty-two consultants with no experience with ProVu participated (15 ± 9 years after training completion). The DL was significantly faster (cTTI) than all other devices (p = 0.033 vs. VLSs, and p < 0.001 for CLBI and Provu), no differences were seen between the two VLSs (p = 0.775), and the VLSs were faster than CLBI and ProVu. Provu had a faster cTTI than CLBI (p = 0.004). The DL and VLSs showed similar SRs, and all the laryngoscopes had a higher SR than CLBI and ProVu at the first attempt. However, by the third attempt, the SR was not different between the DL/VLSs and ProVu (p = 0.241/p = 0.616); ProVu was superior to CLBI (p = 0.038). In consultants with no prior experience, ProVu shows encouraging results compared to DL/VLSs under simulated normal airway circumstances and further studies are warranted.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) Revealing the Future of Airway Management: Video Laryngoscopy vs. Macintosh Laryngoscopy for Enhanced Clinical Outcomes

Since the 1940s, Macintosh laryngoscopy (Mac laryngoscopy) has been the gold standard for tracheal intubation, offering visualization of the glottis entrance. However, recent years have witnessed the emergence of various video laryngoscopy (VL) techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of VL versus Mac laryngoscopy in an elective setting. We comprehensively searched five medical databases - PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. All the databases were last searched in January 2023. We only included studies with full texts comparing VL to Mac laryngoscopy clinical outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were non-full text or non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not compare VL to Mac laryngoscopy. We extracted data comprising author names, publication year, key study outcomes (first-attempt intubation success rate, Cormack and Lehane grade, hypoxia incidence, and glottis view quality), video laryngoscope types, and sample sizes of both VL and Mac laryngoscopy groups. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK), presenting results as odds ratio (OR) and risk ratios (RR) at a 95% confidence interval (CI). This facilitated the identification of relevant and appropriate studies of our analysis. The search produced 19 studies that were included in this review. The evaluated sample size ranges from 40 to 802, with 3,238 participants. The rate of success at the first attempt in the use of VL was 1,558/1,890 (82.43%), while the success rate for Mac laryngoscopy was 982/1,348 (72.85%; OR: 1.98 (1.25, 3.12)) at a 95% confidence interval. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference for hypoxia concerning the type of device used RR (random effects: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). A video laryngoscope had a higher likelihood of visualizing the vocal cords categorized as category 1 in the Cormack-Lehane system of classification (RR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.43-4.21). Additionally, considerably better glottis views were attained during VL than Mac laryngoscopy (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.19-2.62). In elective tracheal intubation, VL demonstrates superior first-attempt success rates, offers improved glottis visualization, and reduces instances where the glottis cannot be viewed compared to Mac laryngoscopy.