Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study

BMC Anesthesiology

David W Healy¹  Paul Picton¹  Michelle Morris¹  Christopher Turner¹ 

[1] Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., 1H247, SPC 5048, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5048, USA

关键词: Devices;    Difficult laryngoscopy;    Manikin;    Videolaryngoscopy;   

Others  :  817055
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2253-12-11

 received in 2012-02-28, accepted in 2012-06-21,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Videolaryngoscopy presents a new approach for the management of the difficult and rescue airway. There is little available evidence to compare the performance features of these devices in true difficult laryngoscopy.

Methods

A prospective randomized crossover study was performed comparing the performance features of the Macintosh Laryngoscope, Glidescope, Storz CMAC and Storz DCI videolaryngoscope. Thirty anesthesia providers attempted intubation with each of the 4 laryngoscopes in a high fidelity difficult laryngoscopy manikin. The time to successful intubation (TTSI) was recorded for each device, along with failure rate, and the best view of the glottis obtained.

Results

Use of the Glidescope, CMAC and Storz videolaryngoscopes improved the view of the glottis compared with use of the Macintosh blade (GEE, p = 0.000, p = 0.002, p = 0.000 respectively). Use of the CMAC resulted in an improved view compared with use of the Storz VL (Fishers, p = 0.05). Use of the Glidescope or Storz videolaryngoscope blade resulted in a longer TTSI compared with either the Macintosh (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.029 respectively) or CMAC blades (GLM, p = 0.000, p = 0.033 respectively).

Conclusions

Unsurprisingly, when used in a simulated difficult laryngoscopy, all the videolaryngoscopes resulted in a better view of the glottis than the Macintosh blade. However, interestingly the CMAC was found to provide a better laryngoscopic view that the Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope. Additionally, use of either the Glidescope or Storz DCI Videolaryngoscope resulted in a prolonged time to successful intubation compared with use of the CMAC or Macintosh blade. The use of the CMAC during manikin simulated difficult laryngoscopy combined the efficacy of attainment of laryngoscopic view with the expediency of successful intubation. Use of the Macintosh blade combined expedience with success, despite a limited laryngoscopic view. The limitations of a manikin model of difficult laryngoscopy limits the conclusions for extrapolation into clinical practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Healy et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1 .

Figure 2 .

Figure 3 .

Figure 4 .

Figure 5 .

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cormack RS, Lehane J: Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984, 39:1105-1111.
• [2]Lewis M, Keramati S, Benumof JL, Berry CC: What is the best way to determine oropharyngeal classification and mandibular space length to predict difficult laryngoscopy? Anesthesiology 1994, 81:69-75.
• [3]Yentis SM, Lee DJ: Evaluation of an improved scoring system for the grading of direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1998, 53:1041-1044.
• [4]Mashour GA, Sandberg WS: Craniocervical extension improves the specificity and predictive value of the Mallampati airway evaluation. Anesth Analg 2006, 103:1256-1259.
• [5]You JS, Park S, Chung SP, Park YS, Park JW: The usefulness of the GlideScope video laryngoscope in the education of conventional tracheal intubation for the novice. Emerg Med J 2009, 26:109-111.
• [6]Low D, Healy D, Rasburn N: The use of the BERCI DCI Video Laryngoscope for teaching novices direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 2008, 63:195-201.
• [7]Kaplan MB, Ward DS, Berci G: A new video laryngoscope-an aid to intubation and teaching. J Clin Anesth 2002, 14:620-626.
• [8]Marrel J, Blanc C, Frascarolo P, Magnusson L: Videolaryngoscopy improves intubation condition in morbidly obese patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007, 24:1045-1049.
• [9]Dhonneur G, Abdi W, Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Risk N, El Housseini L, Polliand C, Champault G, Combes X, Tual L: Video-assisted versus conventional tracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg 2009, 19:1096-1101.
• [10]Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Tual L, Polliand C, Kamoun W, El Housseini L, Champault G, Dhonneur G: Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Br J Anaesth 2008, 100:263-268.
• [11]Dhonneur G, Ndoko SK, Yavchitz A, Foucrier A, Fessenmeyer C, Pollian C, Combes X, Tual L: Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: LMA CTrach vs direct laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth 2006, 97:742-745.
• [12]Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG: Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology 2007, 107:53-59.
• [13]Komatsu R, Kamata K, Hoshi I, Sessler DI, Ozaki M: Airway scope and gum elastic bougie with Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated restricted neck mobility. Br J Anaesth 2008, 101:863-869.
• [14]Komatsu R, Kamata K, Hamada K, Sessler DI, Ozaki M: Airway scope and StyletScope for tracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway. Anesth Analg 2009, 108:273-279.
• [15]Malik MA, Subramaniam R, Churasia S, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG: Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of the Airwayscope, LMA CTrach, and the Macintosh laryngoscopes. Br J Anaesth 2009, 102:654-661.
• [16]Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG: Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2008, 101:723-730.
• [17]Liu EH, Goy RW, Tan BH, Asai T: Tracheal intubation with videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a randomized trial of the Airway Scope(R) and the GlideScope(R). Br J Anaesth 2009, 103:446-451.
• [18]Arslan ZI, Yildiz T, Baykara ZN, Solak M, Toker K: Tracheal intubation in patients with rigid collar immobilisation of the cervical spine: a comparison of Airtraq and LMA CTrach devices*. Anaesthesia 2009, 64:1332-1336.
• [19]Nileshwar A, Thudamaladinne A: Comparison of intubating laryngeal mask airway and Bullard laryngoscope for oro-tracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated limitation of cervical movements. Br J Anaesth 2007, 99:292-296.
• [20]Maassen R, Lee R, Hermans B, Marcus M, van Zundert A: A comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: the Macintosh laryngoscope blade reduces, but does not replace, routine stylet use for intubation in morbidly obese patients. Anesth Analg 2009, 109:1560-1565.
• [21]Van Zundert A, Maassen R, Lee R, Willems R, Timmerman M, Siemonsma M, Buise M, Wiepking M: A Macintosh laryngoscope blade for videolaryngoscopy reduces stylet use in patients with normal airways. Anesth Analg 2009, 109:825-831.
• [22]Cavus E, Kieckhaefer J, Doerges V, Moeller T, Thee C, Wagner K: The C-MAC Videolaryngoscope: First Experiences with a New Device for Videolaryngoscopy-Guided Intubation. Anesth Analg 2010, 110:473-477.
• [23]Littell RC, Henry PR, Ammerman CB: Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. J Anim Sci 1998, 76:1216-1231.