A comparison of the Glidescope® to the McGrath® videolaryngoscope in patients

Abstract

BackgroundThe Glidescope® videolaryngoscope is a new device for tracheal intubation that provides an improved view of the larynx. This study was performed to compare the Glidescope with the McGrath videolaryngoscope in terms of time to intubation (TTI) and number of attempts.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to one of two groups, Glidescope or McGrath group, by using computer-generated numbers. Tracheal intubation was attempted by an anesthesiologist with extensive experience using these two devices. The operator recorded ease of visualization of glottic structures based on the classification described by Cormack and Lehane. Number of failures, number of attempts and their duration, total intubation time, and events during the whole procedure were recorded. The duration of one attempt was defined as the time elapsed between picking up the endotracheal tube and verification of tracheal intubation with visualization of three expiratory carbon dioxide waveforms. TTI was defined as the sum of the duration of all intubation attempts (as many as three), excluding preoxygenation procedures.ResultsTTI was significantly shorter for the Glidescope® compared to the McGrath® laryngoscope (40.5 vs. 53.3 s, respectively, P < 0.05). However, glottic views obtained at intubation were similar between the two groups. Number of intubation attempts was not significantly different between the two groups (1.03 ± 0.19 vs 1.10 ± 0.32, respectively) (mean ± SD).ConclusionsStudy results demonstrated that the Glidescope reduced total intubation time in comparison with the McGrath, in terms of TTI in patients with normal airways.

Can the new McGrath laryngoscope rival the GlideScope Ranger portable video laryngoscope? A randomized manikin study

“…One study showed that the success rates for the McGrath series 5 and the GlideScope were similar to the success rates for the Macintosh laryngoscope, but the time to first ventilation for the McGrath series 5 was longer during the first intubation attempt [13]. The other study, which used experienced anesthesiologists, reported that the GlideScope reduced the total intubation time compared with the McGrath series 5 in normal airways [14]. However, the McGrath MAC exhibited equal intubation times and intubation success rates in this study.…”

“…In this study, we evaluated the performances of the McGrath MAC in comparison with the GlideScope Ranger and the Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airways and an immobilized neck scenario, which was expected to provide an advantage for the 2 video laryngoscopes. Of the 2 video laryngoscopes, some previous studies have demonstrated that the McGrath series 5 was not better than the GlideScope with respect to the intubation time and the success rate of intubation [14][15][16]. One study showed that the success rates for the McGrath series 5 and the GlideScope were similar to the success rates for the Macintosh laryngoscope, but the time to first ventilation for the McGrath series 5 was longer during the first intubation attempt [13].…”

“…One meta-analysis demonstrated that the rates of successful intubations, the time to intubation, and the glottic view of the GlideScope were superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope among nonexpert operators [5]. Jeon et al [14] reported that the GlideScope reduced the total intubation time compared with the McGrath in normal airways. We do not suggest that the results for the GlideScope would be the same as for the GlideScope Ranger in an emergency.…”

The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized trial in obstetric patients

“…Various video laryngoscopes have been studied to elucidate the hemodynamic changes during orotracheal intubation; however, there has been no study comparing the hemodynamic response to orotracheal intubation of the McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope (36)(37)(38)(39). Moreover, in one study, Jeon et al reported that the McGrath video laryngoscope led to a significant increase in systolic arterial blood pressure and heart rate compared to baseline (14). Similar to this result, the present study revealed a substantial increase in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during laryngoscopy with either the McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope.…”

“…There are several video laryngoscopes in clinical use; however, only limited comparative studies have been conducted to evaluate the exact performance of these devices (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Hence, we compared the McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients who underwent cesarean section.…”