+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Direct laryngoscopy or C-MAC video laryngoscopy? Routine tracheal intubation in patients undergoing ENT surgery

Direct laryngoscopy or C-MAC video laryngoscopy? Routine tracheal intubation in patients undergoing ENT surgery

Der Anaesthesist 59(9): 806-811

Previous studies have shown that video laryngoscopy enhances laryngeal view in patients with apparently normal and difficult airways. The utility of the novel, portable, battery-powered C-MAC video laryngoscope is as yet unproven. It was hypothesized that in routine patients undergoing ENT surgery, the rate of glottic views considered unsatisfactory, i.e. Cormack and Lehane grades IIb, III, and IV, could be significantly reduced with the C-MAC video laryngoscope compared to direct laryngoscopy. Following ethical approval and sample size estimates 108 consecutive patients undergoing ENT surgery under general anesthesia were studied. First, direct laryngoscopy was performed with the naked eye. The best view obtained was graded by the first anesthesiologist without looking at the video monitor. A second anesthesiologist blinded to the laryngeal view obtained under direct laryngoscopy graded the laryngeal view on the video monitor. Endotracheal intubation using Ring-Adair-Elwyn (RAE) tracheal tubes was then attempted under video-aided visualization. The tubes were not reinforced with a stylet. The C-MAC video laryngoscopy system (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) is a novel device that can be used with Macintosh laryngoscope blades in different sizes. A camera and light source are located recessed from the tip of the blade. The camera unit sits in a handle attached to the laryngoscope blade and is connected by a wire to a TFT video monitor. It allows for both direct and indirect laryngoscopy and the low profile of the original British Macintosh blades may prove advantageous in patients with limited mouth opening. A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study but for various reasons only 94 completed the study (post hoc power 97%). In 89 patients a size 3 Macintosh laryngoscope was used while a size 4 blade was used in the remaining 5 patients. With direct laryngoscopy the glottic view was considered unsatisfactory in 40 patients (42%), but this was the case in only 15 patients (16%) when video laryngoscopy was used (p<0.0001). Endotracheal tube placement was successful in all but one patient where the Bonfils intubation fiberscope needed to be employed. No complications related to the C-MAC system were observed. Compared to direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade in unselected patients undergoing ENT surgery and thus patients more susceptible to an unexpected difficult airway than a general patient population, the mobile C-MAC video laryngoscope significantly enhanced laryngeal view. Using RAE tracheal tubes seems to compensate the unfavorable deviation of optical and anatomical axes when indirect laryngoscopy is performed with the C-MAC system.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052634060

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20703441

DOI: 10.1007/s00101-010-1753-3

Related references

McGrath Video Laryngoscopy Facilitates Routine Nasotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Comparison With Macintosh Laryngoscopy. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 74(2): 256-261, 2016

Expected difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 102(4): 546-550, 2009

Comparison of GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation in Neonates. Anesthesia and Analgesia 129(2): 482-486, 2019

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 89: 195-199, 2015

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for first-attempt tracheal intubation in the general ward. Annals of Intensive Care 8(1): 83, 2018

Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of GlideScope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. Journal of Emergency Medicine 42(4): 400-405, 2012

Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy in Intubating a Mannequin: Should Video Laryngoscopy Be Available to Manage Airway Emergencies in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Office?. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 73(10): 1901-1906, 2015

A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World Journal of Surgery 39(3): 782-788, 2015

Is video laryngoscopy really superior to direct laryngoscopy for emergency intubation in prehospital trauma patients?. Internal and Emergency Medicine 12(1): 139-140, 2017

First-Attempt Intubation Success of Video Laryngoscopy in Patients With Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy. Survey of Anesthesiology 60(4): 149-150, 2016

First-Attempt Intubation Success of Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy. Anesthesia & Analgesia 122(3): 740-750, 2016

Comparison of GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of Pediatric Patients in the Emergency Department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 62(4): S75-S76, 2013

Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department. Internal and Emergency Medicine 9(1): 93-98, 2014

Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy on Successful First-Pass Orotracheal Intubation Among ICU Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317(5): 483-493, 2017

Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department patients with cardiac arrest: A multicentre study. Resuscitation 136: 70-77, 2019