A comparison of the TruView EVO2 and macintosh laryngoscope blades

Tütüncü, Ayşe Çiğdem; Kaya, Güner; Tunalı, Yusuf; Altıntaş, Fatiş; Dilmen, Özlem Korkmaz

doi:10.1590/s1807-59322011000400029

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 16 In our study, participants had little professional experience with MCL or any other intubation device (paramedics intubate rarely comparing to experienced anesthesiologists), so our results reflect better in our opinion possible advantages and disadvantages of evaluated devices. The study by Tutuncu et al 17 performed on patients revealed that the Truview EVO2 appears to be better than the Macintosh blade because of its continuous oxygen insufflation system that cleans the secretions, and its optical apparatus that significantly improves the view of the laryngeal entry. Timanaykar et al 18 had the same observations and concluded that tracheal intubation using Truview blade provided consistently improved laryngeal view as compared with Macintosh blade without the need to align the oral, pharyngeal, and tracheal axes, with equal attempts for successful intubation, and similar changes in hemodynamics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truview EVO2 and Standard Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Gaszyńska

Gaszyński

2014

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in manikin-simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and no-CPR scenarios with standard intubation technique.Participants performed 4 scenarios in random order: endotracheal intubation (ETI) using Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL), Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in no-CPR patient scenario, and intubation during uninterrupted chest compressions using both laryngoscopes. The participants were directed to make 3 attempts in each scenario. Primary outcomes were time to tracheal intubation (TTI) and intubation success, whereas secondary outcomes were cumulative success ratio and the number of esophageal intubation (EI). TTI and success ratios were reported per attempt.Thirty paramedics completed the study. Median TTI with Truview EVO2 with CPR was 36 (interquartile range [IQR] 29.00–52.00), 22.5 (IQR 18.33–35.00), and 18 (IQR 11.00–23.00) seconds; MCL with CPR was 23 (IQR 18.92–36.90), 16.8 (IQR 14.00–22.31), and 14.5 (IQR 11.12–16.36) seconds; Truview EVO2 without CPR was 28.6 (IQR 24.02–38.34), 21.7 (IQR 17.00–25.00), and 13 (IQR 11.90–17.79) seconds; MCL without CPR was 17 (IQR 13.23–22.29), 13 (IQR 12.09–15.26), and 12.4 (IQR 10.08–19.84) seconds for first, second, and third attempts, respectively. The P values for differences in TTI between Truview EVO2 and MCL were P < 0.0001, P = 0.0540, and P = 0.7550 in CPR scenario and P = 0.0080, P = 0.1570, and P = 0.7652 in no-CPR scenario for first, second, and third attempts, respectively. The success ratios for each of the scenarios were as follows: in CPR scenario it was 0.73 versus 0.53 (P = 0.0558), 0.83 versus 0.76 (P = 0.2633), and 1 versus 0.8 (P = 0.0058); in no-CPR scenario it was 0.63 versus 0.73 (P = 0.2068), 0.86 versus 0.86, and 0.97 versus 1 (P = 0.1637) for Truview EVO2 vs MCL in first, second, and third attempts, respectively.The cumulative success ratio related to the time of ETI was better for MCL compared with Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in both scenarios (P = 0.0029 and P = 0.0004 in no-CPR and CPR scenarios). The number of EI with MCL was 30% versus 13.3% (P = 0.0113), and for Truview EVO2 it was 20.45% versus 15.56% in CPR and no-CPR scenarios, respectively.The application of Truview EVO2 during uninterrupted chest compressions increased TTI but increased the success ratio of ETI and decreased number of EIs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truview EVO2 and Standard Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Gaszyńska

Gaszyński

2014

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This maneuver requires a good eye–hand coordination and expertise. [414] While using ML, the anaesthesiologist looks straight at the glottis and the tip of the endotracheal tube and, therefore, can negotiate the tube under direct vision. Lower intubation difficulty score in patients intubated with TL could be attributed to improvement in glottic view and non-requirement of laryngeal pressure or increased lifting force with TL as reported previously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of the Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in the airway management of elective surgical patients: A comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope

Ak¹,

Madan²,

Shrivastava³

et al. 2013

Indian J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The Truview EVO2(C) laryngoscope (TL) is a recently introduced optical device designed to provide an unmagnified anterior image of the glottic opening and allow indirect laryngoscopy.Aim:This study is designed to determine whether the TL is a better alternative to the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) for routine endotracheal intubations in patients with usual airway characteristics.Methods:We compared the Truview EVO2(C) and MLs in 140 elective surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia and intubation in a prospective crossover fashion. The two blades were compared in terms of Cormack and Lehane grades, time required for intubation, anaesthetists’ assessment of ease of intubation, intubation difficulty score, attempts at intubation, success rate, soft tissue damage and arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy. The Student t test and Chi-square test were used to determine the statistical significance of parametric data and categorical data, respectively.Results:The Truview EVO2(C) blade provided a better laryngoscopic view than the Macintosh blade as suggested by improved Cormack and Lehane grades (in 48 patients), but required a longer time for intubation than the Macintosh blade (34.1 vs. 22.4 s), i.e., an improved view at the cost of longer mean intubation time. In spite of lower intubation difficulty scores, Truview EVO2(C) was considered as difficult to use on subjective assessment by the anaesthesiologist when compared with Macintosh. There was no difference observed between the two groups in attempts at intubation, success rate, soft tissue damage and arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy.Conclusion:We opine that although Truview provides a better laryngoscopic view than Macintosh in difficult cases, it does not have an extra benefit over Macintosh otherwise, further indicating the need for more experience with the use of a Truview laryngoscope.

show abstract

“…(12) Daha önce boyun hareketleri sınırlı olmayan erişkin hastalarda Truview EVO2 ve Macintosh laringoskopu karşılaştırdığımız çalışmamızda da Truview EVO2'nin daha iyi bir vokal kord görüntüsü sağlarken entübasyonu kolaylaştırmadığını göstermiş-tik. (13) Bu çalışmamızda da Truview EVO2 laringoskopun vokal kord ve epiglotun daha iyi görünmesini sağladığı fakat entübas-yon süresi ve entübasyon için yinelenen laringoskopi sayısını arttırdığı gösterilmiş-tir. Çalışmamız, daha önce Truview EVO2 laringoskopla entübasyon eğitimi almış anestezistler tarafından gerçekleştirilse de doğal olarak Macintosh laringoskopu kullanma deneyimimizin daha çok olması Truview grubunda entübasyon süresini uzatan bir faktör olabilir.…”

Section: İstatistiksel Analizunclassified

Comparison of Macintosh and Truview EVO2 laryngoscope usage in adult patients who undergoing cervical disc surgery

Dilmen¹,

Tütüncü²,

Akçıl³

et al. 2012

J Turk Anaesth Int Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZETAmaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, servikal kolar ile boyun hareketleri kısıtlanan servikal disk hernisi ameliyatı geçirecek erişkin hastalarda entübasyon sırasında Macintosh ve Truview EVO2 laringoskopların etkinliğini karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Etik kurul onayı ve imzalı hasta onamı alındıktan sonra ASA I-II-III sınıfından servikal disk hernisi ameliyatı geçirecek 80 hasta rasgele 2 gruba ayrıldı. Servikal kolar takılıp ya Truview EVO2 ya da Macintosh laringoskopla entübe edildi. Hastaların tiromental mesafe, Wilson, Mallampati ve Cormack Lehane skorları, entübasyon süresi, entübasyonun kaçıncı denemede gerçekleştirildiği, entübasyondan sonra diş, dudak yaralanması ve başarısız entübas-yon olup olmadığı kaydedildi.Bulgular: Truview EVO2 grubunda Cormack Lehane skoru Macintosh grubuna göre anlamlı düzeyde azken (p<0.00001), entübasyon süresi ve entübasyon için tekrarlanan laringoskopi sayısı anlamlı olarak fazlaydı (sırasıyla p<0.001 ve p<0.01). Truview EVO2 laringoskopla entübe edilemeyen iki hastanın servikal koları çıkarılıp Macintosh laringoskopla entübe edildi.Sonuç: Servikal immobilizasyonu olan hastalarda Truview EVO2 laringoskop vokal kord ve glottisin daha iyi görün-mesini sağlasa da, entübasyon işlemini kolaylaştırmadığından Macintosh laringoskopun alternatifi değildir.Anahtar kelimeler: Entübasyon, laringoskop, Macintosh, Truview EVO2 SUMMARY Comparison of Macintosh and Truview EVO2 Laryngoscope Usage in Adult Patients who Undergoing Cervical Disc SurgeryObjective: The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the Macintosh and Truview EVO2 laryngoscope during intubation in adult patients undergoing cervical disc surgery with neck immobilization using cervical collar.Material and Methods: After obtaining the approval of the ethics committee, and written informed consent of the patients, 80 ASA I, II, III patients who would undergo cervical disc surgery were allocated randomly into two groups. After cervical collar placement, patients were intubated either Truview EVO2 or Macintosh laryngoscopes. Patients' thyromental distance, Wilson, Mallampati and Cormack Lehane scores, duration of intubations, the number of intubation attempts, unsuccessful intubations, dental and lip injuries were noted.Results: While the Cormack Lehane scores were significantly lower (p<0.00001), duration of intubations and the number of intubation attempts were significantly higher in Truview EVO2 group (respectively, p<0.001 ve p<0.01). Two patients were not intubated by Truwiev laryngoscope, therefore cervical collar was removed and intubation was performed by Macintosh laryngoscope.Conclusion: Although Truview EVO2 laryngoscope provides a better view of vocal cords and glottis, since it does not facilitate intubation process, Truview EVO2 is not an alternative to Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical immobilized patients.

show abstract

A comparison of the TruView EVO2 and macintosh laryngoscope blades

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Truview EVO2 and Standard Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Truview EVO2 and Standard Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Role of the Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in the airway management of elective surgical patients: A comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope

Comparison of Macintosh and Truview EVO2 laryngoscope usage in adult patients who undergoing cervical disc surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About