Assesment of Macintosh Laryngoscope and Truview EVO2 Video-laryngoscope With Respect to Hemodynamic and Intubation Quality in Patients With Presumptive Difficult Intubation

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study aims to compare Macintosh laryngoscope and Truview EVO2 video- laryngoscope with respect to the quality of glottic image, the success rate of intubation and their impact on the duration of intubation, hemodynamic responses and also related complications in patients with expected difficult intubation according to the Mallampati scoring system. Sixty patients in ASA I-II group ranging from 18-65 years of age were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 cases as group M (the group intubated with Macintosh laryngoscope) and Group V (the group intubated with Truview EVO2 video-laryngoscope). C-L (Cormack-Lehanne) score detected during intubation, duration of intubation, neck extansion needs, the success of intubation, complications, and antihypertensive requirement were recorded. Preoperatively, before induction, after induction, immediately after intubation, after intubation, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5 minute heart rate, systolic artesial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded. There was a significant difference between both groups as for the quality of glottic images obtained. C-L III score was rated for 1 patient in Group M, and 10 patients in Group V (p<0.05) . Duration of intubation was 23 secs in Group M, and 42 secs in Group V, respectively (p<0.05). During intubation neck extension was significantly higher in Group M (p<0.05). Bleeding complication was observed in one patient’s mouth during intubation in Group M while no complications were observed in Group V (p>0.05) . Number of attempts of intubation, hemodynamic parameters and need for antihypertensive showed no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05). Truview EVO2 video-laryngoscope may be preferred to Macintosh blade laryngoscope because of better glottic and orafaringeal image acquisition in patients expected with difficult intubation and providing successful intubation in patients with contraindicated neck extension. J. Exp. Clin. Med., 2011; 28:4-7

Keywords

• Intubation, airway, Macintosh laryngoscope, Truview EVO2, video-laryngoscope, hemodynamics

References

1. Armstrong, J., John, J., Karsli, C. 2010. A comparison between the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in paediatric pa tients with difficult airways - a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 65, 353-357.
2. Carlino, C., Pastore, J.C., Battistini, G.M., Cancellieri, F., De Caria, D., Ruggieri, N., Bordone, G., Bellato, V., 2009. Training resident anesthe- siologists in adult challenging intubation comparing Truview EVO2 and Macintosh laryngoscope: a preliminary study. Minerva Anestesiol. Chartes, P. 1996.What future is there for predicting diffucult intubation. Br. J. Anaesth. 77, 309-331.
3. Darshane, S., Ali, M., Dhandapani, S., Charters, P., 2010. Validation of a model of graded difficulty in Laerdal SimMan: functional compari sons between Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope and Airtraq. Eur. J. Anaesth.28, 175-180.
4. Enomoto, T., Asai, T., Arai, T., Kamishima, K., Okuda, Y., 2008. Pentax-AWS, a new videolaryngoscope, is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with restricted neck movements Br. J. Anaesth. 100, 544-548.
5. Gal, T.J., 2005. Airwya management. In: Miller RD.,ed. Miller’s Anesthesia. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Chuchill Livingstone, 1617-1652.
6. Malik, M.A., Maharaj, C.H., Harte, B.H., Laffey, J.G., 2008. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO’, GlideScope and Airwayscope laryngo- scope use in patients with cervikal spine immobilization. Br. J. Anaesth. 101, 723-730.
7. Maruyama, K.,Yamada, T., Kawakami, R., Hara, K., 2008. Randomized cross-over comparison of cervical-spine motion with the AirWay Scope or Macintosh laryngoscope with in-line stabilization: a video-fluoroscopic study. Br. J. Anaesthesiology. 101, 563-567.
8. Miceli, L., Cecconi, M., Tripi, G., Zauli, M., Della Rocca, G., 2008. Evaluation of new laryngoscope blade for trakeal intubation, Truview EVO2: amanikin study. Eur. J. Anaesth. 25, 446-449.

9. Rodriguez-Nunez, A., Oulego-Erroz, I., Perez-Gay, L., Cortinas-Diaz, J., 2010. Comparison of the GlideScope Videolaryngoscope to the stan- dard macintosh for intubation by pediatric residents in simulated child airway scenarios. Pediatr. Emerg. Care. 26, 726-729.
10. Shimada, M., Hirabayashi, Y., Seo, N., 2010. [Nasotracheal intubation using GlideScope videolaryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope by novice laryngoscopists]. Masui. 59, 1318-1320.
11. Singh, R., Singh, P., Vajifdar, H., 2009. A comparison of Truview infant EVO2 laryngoscope with the Miller blade in neonates and infants. Pe- diatr. Anaesth. 4, 338-342.
12. Sun, D.A., Warriner, C.B., Parsons, D.G., Klein, R., Umedaly, H.S., Moult, M., 2005. The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br. J. Anaesth. 94, 381-384.