| Literature DB >> 35782669 |
Besthadi Sukmono1, Sidharta K Manggala1, Aino N Auerkari1, Budiani Christina1.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Video laryngoscopy highly improves the success rate for endotracheal intubation. However, commercially available video laryngoscopes such as McGrath MAC® can be costly. An economical video laryngoscope was assembled by attaching a fibreoptic videoscope into a Macintosh laryngoscope. This randomised study aimed to compare the intubation time of this self-assembled modified Macintosh video laryngoscope (SAM-VL) and McGrath MAC® (McGrath).Entities:
Keywords: Glottis; intratracheal intubation; laryngoscopy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35782669 PMCID: PMC9241192 DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_300_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Anaesth ISSN: 0019-5049
Figure 1Self-made video laryngoscope used in this study. (a-d) Lateral and top view of the laryngoscope. (e) Portable video camera with a Wi-fi connection (Wi-fi Endoscope Video Camera model YPC99). (f and g) Comparison of the curve and angle of the scope (f) and McGrath MAC® Laryngoscope (g)
Figure 2The study framework. BW: Body weight; SAM-VL: Self-assembled Video laryngoscope; POGO: Percentage of Glottic Opening; BURP: Backward, upward, rightward pressure; ETCO2: End-tidal carbon dioxide; ET tube: Endotracheal tube
Characteristics of subjects
| Characteristics | SAM-VL ( | McGrath MAC® ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years)* | 35.10±13.25 | 41.03±14.34 |
| Gender** | ||
| Male | 11 (35.5) | 16 (51.6) |
| Women | 20 (64.5) | 15 (48.4) |
| Body Weight (kg)*** | 55 (36–80) | 58 (47–90) |
| Height (cm)* | 160.39±6.95 | 160.52±7.97 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2)* | 21.91±2.85 | 23.38±3.29 |
| ASA** | ||
| I | 3 (9.7) | 5 (16.1) |
| II | 28 (90.3) | 26 (83.9) |
*data described in mean value±standard deviations. **data described in frequency (percentage). ***data described in median (maximum value-minimum value). ASA – American Society of Anesthesiologists
Comparison between SAM-VL and McGrath MAC®: intubation time, attempt rate, glottic visualisation, and complications
| SAM-VL ( | McGrath MAC® ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intubation time (seconds)* | |||
| Total intubation time (A + B) | 63 (27-114) | 74 (40-133) | 0.032† |
| Intubation Time A | 18 (6-65) | 21 (10-70) | 0.652† |
| Intubation Time B | 39 (20-101) | 50 (27-102) | 0.003† |
| Successful first attempt** | |||
| Yes | 28 (90.3) | 27 (87.1) | 1,000†† |
| No | 3 (9.7) | 4 (12.9) | |
| Glottic visualisation** | |||
| POGO score 100 | 21 (67.7) | 10 (32.3) | 0.018††† |
| POGO score 75 | 9 (29.0) | 20 (64.5) | |
| POGO score 50 | 1 (3.2) | 1 (3.2) | |
| POGO score 25 | 0 (0,0) | 0 (0,0) | |
| POGO score 0 | 0 (0,0) | 0 (0,0) | |
| BURP** | |||
| Yes | 30 (96.7) | 21 (67.8) | 0.003†† |
| No | 1 (3.3) | 10 (32.2) | |
| Complications** | |||
| Hypertension | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.2) | 0.500†† |
| Hypotension | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | - |
| Tachycardia | 4 (12.9) | 9 (29.0) | 0.106†††† |
| Bradycardia | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | - |
| Mucosal laceration | 3 (9.7) | 1 (3.2) | 0.306†† |
| Oesophageal intubation | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
*Data presented in median (min-max value). **Data presented in frequency (percentage). Statistical analysis: †Mann-Whitney, ††Fisher, †††Kolmogorov-Smirnov, ††††Chi-square. BURP- Backward, upward, rightward pressure. POGO- percentage of glottic opening
Figure 3Video laryngoscopy images of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scores of 100, 75, and 50. (a-c) were obtained from the SAM-VL group, while (d-f) was obtained from the McGrath MAC® group
Airway operator experience survey
| SAM-VL | McGrath MAC®
| |
|---|---|---|
| Blade insertion | ||
| Very easy | 13 (41.9) | 3 (9.7) |
| Easy | 13 (41.9) | 22 (71.0) |
| Reasonable | 4 (12.9) | 6 (19.4) |
| Difficult | 1 (3,2) | 0 (0,0) |
| Device manoeuvrability | ||
| Very easy | 7 (22.6) | 0 (0,0) |
| Easy | 20 (64.5) | 20 (64.5) |
| Reasonable | 3 (9.7) | 10 (32.3) |
| Difficult | 1 (3,2) | 1 (3,2) |
| Glottic visualisation | ||
| Very good | 16 (51.6) | 0 (0,0) |
| Good | 13 (41.9) | 3 (9.7) |
| Enough | 2 (6.5) | 8 (25.8) |
| Poor | 0 (0,0) | 20 (64.5) |
| Overall satisfaction rating | ||
| Very good | 12 (38.7) | 0 (0,0) |
| Good | 16 (51.6) | 10 (32.3) |
| Enough | 3 (9.7) | 20 (64.5) |
| Poor | 0 (0,0) | 1 (3,2) |
All data expressed in frequency (percentage)