A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways

Abstract

BackgroundThe Glidescope Videolaryngoscope (GVL) is a newly developed video laryngoscope. It offers a significantly improved laryngeal view and facilitates endotracheal intubation in difficult airways, but it is controversial in that it offers an improved laryngeal view in normal airways as well. And the price of GVL is expensive. We hypothesized that intubation carried out by fully experienced anesthesiologists using the GVL with appropriate pre-anesthetic preparations offers an improved laryngeal view and shortened intubation time in normal airways. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the GVL with the Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airways and to determine whether GVL can substitute the Macintosh laryngoscope.MethodsThis study included 60 patients with an ASA physical status of class 1 or 2 requiring tracheal intubation for elective surgery. All patients were randomly allocated into two groups, GVL (group G) or Macintosh (group M). ADS (airway difficulty score) was recorded before induction of anesthesia. The anesthesiologist scored vocal cord visualization using the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) visible and the subjective ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The time required to intubate was recorded by an assistant.ResultsThere was a significant increase in POGO when using the GVL (P < 0.05). However, there was no difference in the time required for a successful tracheal intubation using the GVL compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The VAS score on the ease of intubation was significantly lower for the GVL than for the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05).ConclusionsGVL could be a first-line tool in normal airways.

Hemodynamic changes during orotracheal intubation using Airtraq video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope: A randomized comparative study

“…17 Despite significant increase in percentage of visible glottic opening with Glidescope (P < 0.05), Choi GS et al did not find any difference in the time required for a successful tracheal intubation when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. 18 Similar finding for intubation time was observed in many other studies using KingVision video laryngoscope, Airtraq and Glidescope when all these were compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. 5,12,19 Unlike these studies, Castillo-Monzón CG et al and Dhonneur G et al found shorter intubation time with Airtraq when compared with Macintosh laryngoscope.…”

A prospective randomized controlled study to evaluate and compare GlideScope with Macintosh laryngoscope for ease of endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia

“…Numerous studies have previously reported an improvement in CL grading. Some of these studies have been done in predicted or simulated difficult airways[ 13 14 15 16 ] while others in general patient population and normal airways[ 8 9 16 17 18 ] and findings of the present study further confirms and extends this evidence.…”

Comparison of the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double‐lumen tube intubation

“…A light source and a digital video camera are positioned at the tip of the blade so that pictures of the glottis and vocal cords can be displayed on a monitor. Standard tracheal tubes can be inserted into the trachea more precisely, causing less tissue damage [1]. Compared with the direct Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope videolaryngoscope has been reported to shorten intubation time and improve the success rate of the first attempt at intubation in normal and in difficult airways [2–4].…”