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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 May 15;19(1):75.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0737-3.

Intubation of non-difficult airways using video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a randomized, parallel-group study

De-Xing Liu  1 , Ying Ye  1 , Yu-Hang Zhu  1 , Jing Li  1 , Hong-Ying He  1 , Liang Dong  1 , Zhao-Qiong Zhu  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Intubation of non-difficult airways using video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a randomized, parallel-group study

De-Xing Liu et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: The video laryngoscope is recommended for intubating difficult airways. The present study aimed to determine whether the video laryngoscope can further improve intubation success rates compared with the direct laryngoscope in patients with non-difficult airways.

Methods: In total, 360 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgeries were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using either a video laryngoscope (n = 179) or a direct laryngoscope (n = 181). The following parameters were measured: mouth opening; thyromental distance; sternomental distance; shape angle of the tracheal catheter; and glottic exposure grade.

Results: The percentage of patients with level I-II of total glottic exposure in the video laryngoscope group was 100% versus 63.5% in the direct laryngoscope group (P < 0.001). The one-attempt success rate of intubation was 96.1% using a video laryngoscope versus 90.1% using a direct laryngoscope (P = 0.024). The intubation success rate using a video laryngoscope was 100% versus 94.5% using a direct laryngoscope (P = 0.004). Immediate oropharyngeal injury occurred in 5.1% of patients intubated using a direct laryngoscope versus 1.1% using a video laryngoscope (P = 0.033). On postoperative day 1, obvious hoarseness was exhibited by 7.9% of patients intubated using a direct laryngoscope versus 2.8% using a video laryngoscope (P = 0.035). The grade of glottic exposure and catheter shape angle were independent risk factors for tracheal intubation failure. Thyromental distance, shape angle, glottic exposure time, and surgical position were independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Thyromental distance and glottic exposure time were independent risk factors for complications lasting > 2 days.

Conclusions: Intubation using a video laryngoscope yielded significantly higher intubation success rates and significantly fewer postoperative complications than direct laryngoscopy in patients with non-difficult airways.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. No: ChiCTR-IOR-16009023 . Prospective registration.

Keywords: Abdominal surgery; Anesthesia; Glottic exposure; Intubation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution (No. 2015062901). All participants provided informed written consent. The trial was registered at the China Clinical Trial Registration Center (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR-IOR-16009023).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A flow chart illustrating patient inclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A picture of the video laryngoscope. a The video laryngoscope. b The parameters. Distance A, 11.5 cm. Distance B, 11.5 cm. Angle C, 120°
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tabari M, Soltani G, Zirak N, Alipour M, Khazaeni K. Comparison of effectiveness of betamethasone gel applied to the tracheal tube and IV dexamethasone on postoperative sore throat: a randomized controlled trial. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;25(73):215–220. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52(2):191–198. doi: 10.1007/BF03027728. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hirabayashi Y, Hakozaki T, Fujisawa K, Yamada M, Suzuki H, Satoh M, et al. Masui. 2007;56(9):1059–1064. - PubMed
    1. Apfelbaum JL, Silverstein JH, Chung FF, Connis RT, Fillmore RB, Hunt SE, et al. Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic care. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(2):291–307. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827773e9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dorges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(1):24–30. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32832d328d. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms