[Efficacy of videolaryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials]

Abstract

Background: Increased evidence indicates that the videolaryngoscope is useful for nasotracheal intubation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of videolaryngoscopes (Glidescope, Airtraq and Pentax-AWS) in nasotracheal intubations, comparing with that of Macintosh laryngoscopy.

Methods: The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 2.2.040 software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials included 294 tracheal intubations by videolaryngoscopes and 253 tracheal intubations by Macintosh laryngoscopy. Videolaryngoscopes showed higher success rate (RR 1.116, 95% CI 1.021-1.220, P < 0.0155, I2 : 51%) and shorter intubation time (MD -11.9 sec, 95% CI-18.9(-) -5.0 sec, P < 0.0008, I2 84%) compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that the videolaryngoscope has an advantage over Macintosh laryngoscope in nasotracheal intubations.