Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;58(3):269-74.
doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.135035.

Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope

Ruchi Bhola  1 , Swaran Bhalla  1 , Radha Gupta  1 , Ishwar Singh  1 , Sunil Kumar  2
Affiliations

Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope

Ruchi Bhola et al. Indian J Anaesth. 2014 May.

Abstract

Background and aims: Literature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope and Truview(®) in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated cervical spine injury using manual in-line stabilisation.

Methods: This prospective randomised study was undertaken in operation theatre of a tertiary referral centre after approval from the Institutional Review Board. A total of 100 consenting patients presenting for elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope (n = 50) or Truview(®) (n = 50) laryngoscope. In all patients, we applied manual-in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine throughout the airway management. Statistical testing was conducted with the statistical package for the social science system version SPSS 17.0. Demographic data, airway assessment and haemodynamics were compared using the Chi-square test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The time to successful intubation was less with McGrath video laryngoscope when compared to Truview (30.02 s vs. 38.72 s). However, there was no significant difference between laryngoscopic views obtained in both groups. The number of second intubation attempts required and incidence of complications were negligible with both devices. Success rate of intubation with both devices was 100%. Intubation with McGrath Video laryngoscope caused lesser alterations in haemodynamics.

Conclusions: Both laryngoscopes are reliable in case of simulated cervical spine injury using manual-in-line stabilisation with 100% success rate and good glottic view.

Keywords: McGrath video laryngoscope; Truview laryngoscope; simulated difficult airway.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bar graph depicting the duration of intubation in seconds during the first attempt with each laryngoscope. The data are given as mean (standard deviation). Group M, McGrath® video laryngoscope group; Group T, Truview EVO2® group
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Horton WA, Fahy L, Charters P. Defining a standard intubating position using “angle finder”. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:6–12. - PubMed
    1. Heath KJ. The effect of laryngoscopy of different cervical spine immobilisation techniques. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:843–5. - PubMed
    1. Asai T, Neil J, Stacey M. Ease of placement of the laryngeal mask during manual in-line neck stabilization. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:617–20. - PubMed
    1. Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of the McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116–9. - PubMed
    1. Malik MA, O‘Donoghue C, Carney J, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of the Glidescope, the Pentax AWS, and the Truview EVO2 with the Macintosh laryngoscope in experienced anaesthetists: A manikin study. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:128–34. - PubMed