BACKGROUND: Video-laryngoscopes have gained popularity in the recent years and have shown definite advantages over the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscopes. However, there is still insufficient evidence comparing the C-MAC with the Macintosh for patients during manual inline stabilization (MILS). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single blind study was carried out to compare tracheal intubation using the C-MAC video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients during MILS. Ninety consented patients, without features of difficult airway, who required general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited. Intubation was performed with either the C-MAC video-laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope by one single investigator experienced with both devices. Various parameters which included Cormack and Lehane score, time to intubate, intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, complications and hemodynamic changes were recorded over the initial period of 5 minutes. RESULTS: C-MAC video-laryngoscope performed significantly better with lower Cormack and Lehane grades, shorter time to intubate of 32.7 ± 6.8 vs. 38.8 ± 8.9 seconds (p = 0.001) and needed less optimization maneuvers. There were no significant differences seen in the intubation attempts, complications or hemodynamic status of the patients with either device. CONCLUSION: The C-MAC video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Video-laryngoscopes have gained popularity in the recent years and have shown definite advantages over the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscopes. However, there is still insufficient evidence comparing the C-MAC with the Macintosh for patients during manual inline stabilization (MILS). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single blind study was carried out to compare tracheal intubation using the C-MAC video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients during MILS. Ninety consented patients, without features of difficult airway, who required general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited. Intubation was performed with either the C-MAC video-laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope by one single investigator experienced with both devices. Various parameters which included Cormack and Lehane score, time to intubate, intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, complications and hemodynamic changes were recorded over the initial period of 5 minutes. RESULTS: C-MAC video-laryngoscope performed significantly better with lower Cormack and Lehane grades, shorter time to intubate of 32.7 ± 6.8 vs. 38.8 ± 8.9 seconds (p = 0.001) and needed less optimization maneuvers. There were no significant differences seen in the intubation attempts, complications or hemodynamic status of the patients with either device. CONCLUSION: The C-MAC video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.