Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Anestesiologica 2016 May 12

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2016 May 12

A comparison of three videolaryngoscopes for double-lumen tubes intubation in simulated easy and difficult airways. A randomised trial

Mohamed R. EL TAHAN, Abdulmohsen A. AL-GHAMDI, Alaa M. KHIDR, Ihab S. GAAROUR

Anesthesiology Department, King Fahd Hospital of the University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND: The King VisionTM (KVL) and Airtraq® may reduce the time to double lumen tube (DLT) intubation compared with the GlideScope® and Macintosh in simulated easy and difficult airways.
METHODS: Twenty-one consented staff anaesthesiologists who had limited prior experience in using videolaryngoscopes for DLT intubation were assigned randomly to insert a DLT using the Macintosh, GlideScope®, Airtraq® and KVL on easy and difficult airway simulators in a randomized crossover order. Time to DLT intubation, laryngoscopic view, intubation difficulty, optimising manoeuvers and failure to intubation; defined as an attempt took longer than 150s, were recorded.
RESULTS: The 3 videolaryngoscopes had comparable times to intubation and glottis visualisation in both scenarios. Compared with the Macintosh, the KVL had longer intubation times in the simulated easy airway scenario (mean 9.2s vs.21.1s, respectively, P<0.001). In both scenarios, the Airtraq® took a longer intubation time than the Macintosh (P<0.001 and P=0.019, respectively). The GlideScope® was easier to use than the Airtraq® and KVL in the easy airway scenario (P=0.021 and P=0.001, respectively). The KVL had higher intubation difficulty scores than the GlideScope® and Airtraq® (P=0.002 and P=0.008, respectively) in both scenarios and required more frequent optimising manoeuvers than the GlideScope® (P=0.012) in the simulated easy airway. Two participants failed to intubate the difficult airway simulator; one with the Macintosh and the other with the KVL.
CONCLUSIONS: The Airtraq® and non-channelled KVL required more time over the Macintosh for DLT intubation, as a primary outcome, but the success rates for the 3 videolaryngoscopes were very high.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page