Comparisons of Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparative Evaluation of Linscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscopes in Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Indirect laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for learning the techniques of airway management. The incorporation of small, less expensive, and yet more reliable video cameras in laryngoscopes has given the process of laryngoscopy and intubation a big leap. The King Vision video laryngoscope (Medline Industries, USA) has demonstrated promise in several settings while the Linscope video laryngoscope (Centrum, Turkey) is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of the Linscope video laryngoscope (VL) and King Vision video laryngoscope. Method This is a randomized controlled trial study. Seventy patients, after approval from the institute's ethical clearance, were divided into two groups. In Group A, patients were intubated with Linscope VL and in Group B patients were intubated with King Vision VL as per the protocol. The primary outcome measure was the duration of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were measured by the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and glottic view. Results Both Linscope VL and King Vision VL groups were comparable in terms of mean intubation time (20.34 s vs. 19.45 s). The endotracheal intubation with both devices was 100% successful at the first attempt. Both the devices provided a percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score of > 70% and a clear vision of the glottis. The POGO score obtained with King Vision VL was 83.57 ± 11.41% and with Linscope VL was 87.85 ± 10.31%. POGO score was greater with Linscope VL compared to King Vision VL, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05). Conclusion King Vision demonstrated shorter intubation time and fewer optimization maneuvers. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate on the first attempt. While both devices are viable first-line options, King Vision's well-established efficacy in the literature suggests its preference over Linscope till extensive evidence is available in the future.

Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation success in critically ill patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction

This review compares the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy (DL) for successful tracheal intubation in critically ill or emergency-care patients.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one or more video laryngoscopes to DL. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and network meta-analysis were used to investigate factors potentially influencing the efficacy of VL. The primary outcome was the success rate of first-attempt intubation.

Results

This meta-analysis included 4244 patients from 22 RCTs. After sensitivity analysis, the pooled analysis revealed no significant difference in the success rate between VL and DL (VL vs. DL, 77.3% vs. 75.3%, respectively; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84-2.20; I² = 80%; low-quality evidence). However, based on a moderate certainty of evidence, VL outperformed DL in the subgroup analyses of intubation associated with difficult airways, inexperienced practitioners, or in-hospital settings. In the network meta-analysis comparing VL blade types, nonchanneled angular VL provided the best outcomes. The nonchanneled Macintosh video laryngoscope ranked second, and DL ranked third. Channeled VL was associated with the worst treatment outcomes.

Discussion

This pooled analysis found, with a low certainty of evidence, that VL does not improve intubation success relative to DL. Channeled VL had low efficacy in terms of intubation success compared with nonchanneled VL and DL.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=285702, identifier: CRD42021285702.

Comparative evaluation of King Vision videolaryngoscope channeled and non-channeled blades with direct laryngoscope for intubation performance and skill retention by medical students: a randomized cross over two period study

PURPOSE

A videolaryngoscope(VL) with an intubation conduit like KingVision channeled(KVC) blade may provide an added advantage over a non-channeled VL like a KingVision non-channeled (KVNC) blade and direct laryngoscope (DL) for acquiring and retention of intubation skills, especially in novices.

METHODS

In this prospective two-period randomized crossover trial, one hundred medical students used three laryngoscopes KVC, KVNC and DL for intubation following standardized training with the study devices using a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer. After one month, all participants attempted intubation, in the same manner, using all devices. The duration of intubation, modified Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, first-attempt success, number of attempts, ease of intubation and dental trauma was recorded. The retention of intubation skills after 1 month was also assessed on the same parameters.

RESULTS

Median intubation times of KVC and DL were comparable and significantly better than KVNC (P < 0.001). The median POGO score was better with both videolaryngoscopes when compared with DL. The ease of intubation (P < 0.0012) and first-attempt success rate (P = 0.001) at the time '0' was significantly better with KVC compared to KVNC and DL. KVC fared better with respect to these intubation parameters during intubation after one month as well.

CONCLUSION

KVC performed better in terms of time to intubation, success rate and ease of procedure as compared to KVNC and DL, both for acquisition and retention of skill. Hence, we advocate that KVC should be the preferred device over KVNC and DL for teaching intubation skills to novices.