Left endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube using direct laryngoscopy or the Trachway<sup>®</sup>video stylet

Hsu, Hung-Te; Chou, Shah‐Hwa; Chen, C.-L.; Tseng, Kuang‐Yi; Kuo, Yi‐Wei; Chen, M.-K.; Cheng, Kai‐Wen

doi:10.1111/anae.12340

Cited by 29 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3,4] Furthermore, videolarynoscopes are recommended in cases of unexpected and expected difficult airway management. [5,6] Recently, many different types of video devices have been reported for use in DLT intubation including the GlideScope, [7–11] McGrath Series 5, [12,13] Airtraq, [14,15] CEL-100, [16,17] Pentax Airway Scope, [18] videolaryngoscopes with MAC blade, [19] video stylet, [20,21] and VivaSight-DL. [22,23] …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

Wan

Liao²,

Li³

et al. 2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Many studies have shown Airtraq videolaryngoscope provided faster tracheal intubation and a higher success rate than other videolaryngoscopes. Recently, different types of videolaryngoscopes have been reported for use in double-lumen tube (DLT) intubation. However, the advantages and disadvantages between them remain undetermined for DLT intubation. In this study, we compared the Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope with the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope for DLT intubation by experienced anesthesiologists.Methods:Ninety patients with expected normal airways were randomly allocated to either the Airtraq or McGrath group. The primary outcome was DLT intubation time. The secondary outcomes were glottic view, success rate, subjective ease of intubation (100-mm visual analog scale, 0 = easy; 100 = difficult), incidence of DLT malposition, and postoperative intubation-related complication.Results:The airway characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Cormack and Lehane grades significantly improved with the use of the McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes, compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The intubation success rate on the first attempt was 93% in the Airtraq group and 95% in the McGrath group (P > 0.05). The intubation time in the McGrath group is longer than that in the Airtraq group (39.9 [9.1]s vs 28.6 [13.6]s, P < 0.05). But intubation difficulty score, the incidence of DLT malposition and intubation-related complication were comparable between groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions:When using videolaryngoscopes for DLT intubation, the Airtraq DL is superior to the McGrath Series 5 in intubation time, but it does not decrease intubation difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

Wan

Liao²,

Li³

et al. 2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has proved useful to novices in both easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenarios [10,11]. Successful oral tracheal single-and double-lumen tube intubations using the Trachway have been reported [12,13]. The Trachway has been used for nasotracheal intubation with a pre-formed double-curved tracheal tube in patients with normal anatomy [14] and we hypothesised that the Trachway technique would be practical for patients with limited mouth opening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway^®

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn patients with limited mouth opening, traditional laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopes are not useful when performing nasotracheal intubation. Eighty patients with limited mouth opening who required nasotracheal intubation were randomly assigned to either fibreoptic intubation (n = 40) or the Trachway â (n = 40). Using the modified nasal intubation difficulty scale, 22 (55%) patients who received fibreoptic intubation were categorised as no difficulty compared with 40 (100%) patients in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). Mean (SD) total intubation time was 71.8 (23.3) s in patients who received fibreoptic intubation compared with 35.4 (9.8) s in the Trachway group (p < 0.001). We conclude that the Trachway technique for nasotracheal intubation is quicker and easier compared with fibreoptic intubation in patients with limited mouth opening.

show abstract

“…Videolaryngoscopes play an important role in airway management . A number of case reports and clinical trials have described the successful use of different videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with a double‐lumen tube, including the GlideScope ® , Airtraq ® , CEL‐100 ™ , Pentax Airway Scope ® , C‐MAC ® , McGrath ® MAC , McGrath Series 5 and video stylet . Some devices have been shown to be superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for double‐lumen tube placement in patients with normal airways .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the McGrath^®Series 5 videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a good glottic view at direct laryngoscopy

Yao

Wan

et al. 2015

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe compared the 3) s, p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of double-lumen tube malposition (6 (12.5%) vs 0, p < 0.05). However, in 18 non-randomised patients with Cormack and Lehane grade ≥ 2b on initial laryngoscopy using the Macintosh, the glottic view was improved on intubation with the McGrath videolaryngoscope, with a total success rate of double-lumen tube placement of 94.4% and mean (SD) intubation time of 50.0 (18.6) s. We recommend that in patients with a low airway risk index score requiring intubation with a double-lumen tracheal tube, the Macintosh laryngoscope is used as the first device and the McGrath videolaryngoscope is used only if this provides a poor glottic view.

show abstract

Left endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube using direct laryngoscopy or the Trachway^®video stylet

Cited by 29 publications

References 30 publications

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway^®

A comparison of the McGrath^®Series 5 videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a good glottic view at direct laryngoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Left endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube using direct laryngoscopy or the Trachway®video stylet

Cited by 29 publications

References 30 publications

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation

Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway®

A comparison of the McGrath®Series 5 videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a good glottic view at direct laryngoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Left endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube using direct laryngoscopy or the Trachway^®video stylet

Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway^®

A comparison of the McGrath^®Series 5 videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tracheal tube placement in patients with a good glottic view at direct laryngoscopy