Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 386

 

Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
     


 
 
Table of Contents
SYMPOSIUM: CRITICAL AIRWAY MANAGEMENT
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 35-41

Videolaryngoscopy


Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington Seattle, Washington, USA

Date of Web Publication3-Mar-2014

Correspondence Address:
R V Chemsian
Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104, Box 356540
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.128011

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

The approach to airway management has undergone a dramatic transformation since the advent of videolaryngoscopy (VL). Videolaryngoscopes have quickly gained popularity as an intubation device in a variety of clinical scenarios and settings, as well as in the hands of airway experts and non-experts. Their indirect view of upper airway improves glottic visualization, including in suspected or encountered difficult intubation. Yet, more studies are needed to determine whether VL actually improves endotracheal intubation (ETI) success rates, intubation times, and first attempt success rates; and thereby a potential replacement to traditional direct laryngoscopy. Furthermore, advances in technology have heralded a wide array of models each with their own strengths, weaknesses, and optimal applications. Such limitations need to be better understood and alternative strategies should be available. Thus, the role of VL continues to evolve. Though it is clear VL expands the armamentarium not only for anesthesiologists, but all healthcare providers potentially involved in airway management.

Keywords: Airway management, endotracheal intubation, indirect laryngoscopy, review article, videolaryngoscopy


How to cite this article:
Chemsian R V, Bhananker S, Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2014;4:35-41

How to cite this URL:
Chemsian R V, Bhananker S, Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Sep 15];4:35-41. Available from: http://www.ijciis.org/text.asp?2014/4/1/35/128011


   Introduction Top


Videolaryngoscopy (VL) utilizes video camera technology to visualize airway structures and facilitate endotracheal intubation (ETI). Given the advances in video technology, more reliable, powerful, and less expensive videolaryngoscopes are emerging on the market with increasing availability. [1] This emergence has been ushered in by increasing use of VL in patients with difficult airways or as a rescue device in failed intubation attempts. [2],[3],[4],[5] Despite a lack of clear evidence suggesting VL improves overall ETI success, [6],[7],[8],[9] VL has quickly become a well-established tool in the armamentarium of the anesthesiologist as well as other healthcare providers (e.g., emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings) involved in airway management. [10],[11]


   Direct Versus Indirect Laryngoscopy Top


Direct laryngoscopy (DL) remains the gold standard technique as an effective means to securing the airway. It is a complicated technical skill with a variable learning curve requiring training, experience, and regular practice to acquire and maintain. DL requires a direct line of sight to align airway axes (oral-pharyngeal-laryngeal) for optimal glottic visualization. Oftentimes, manipulations to align these axes include head extension, neck flexion, laryngeal manipulation, and other stressful movements. Macintosh DL lifting forces can require 35-50 N to expose the glottis. These manipulations of the airway have adverse implications from significant hemodynamic disturbance, cervical instability, injury to oral and pharyngeal tissues, and dental damage. [10]

In contrast to DL, VL utilizes indirect laryngoscopy via its camera; thereby eliminating the need for a direct line of sight to visualize airway structures. In fact, this helps improve glottic visualization. [3],[6],[12] VL requires the application of less force (5-14 N) to the base of the tongue, therefore is less likely to stimulate stress response and induce local tissue injury. [2],[13] Certain videolaryngoscopes (Airtraq® , Pentax® AWS [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]) have been shown to produce less cervical movement when compared to DL. [14] Furthermore, there is a faster learning curve relative to DL independent of status as a novice or experienced laryngoscopist. [3],[6],[15] Some data suggests prolonged intubation times with VL as compared to Macintosh DL, [7],[9] but there is also evidence on the contrary demonstrating equal and possibly faster ETI times. [2],[6]
Figure 1: The Airtraq SP

Click here to view
Figure 2: The Pentax AWS

Click here to view



   Classification Top


A variety of device classifications exist, each with their own specifications and interfaces, giving each device its own unique advantages and disadvantages. Evidence remains insufficient to determine which videolaryngoscope performs best: It is highly unlikely that all offer equal benefit, while none are able to achieve 100% success with intubation. A number of review articles have used different designations for classification of videolaryngoscopes. [1],[2],[3],[10],[16] The most commonly used classification is: Macintosh-modification, angulated blade, and tube/guide channel.

Macintosh-modification integrates video capability to the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope. For those familiar and experienced with the Macintosh blade, the added advantage is the ability to perform both indirect; and in the case of video failure or secretions on the lens, direct laryngoscopy. [15],[17] This may also prove useful to educators in teaching novices of airway anatomy and ETI. These devices do not always require a stylet. Some examples of Macintosh-modification videolaryngoscopes are McGrath® Mac, Storz® V-Mac, and Storz® C-Mac [Figure 3].
Figure 3: The Storz C-Mac

Click here to view


Devices with an angulated blade incorporate a more angled curvature into the blade which markedly improves glottic visualization with minimal patient head flexion and neck extension. [2],[17] The endotracheal tube (ETT), which requires a matching precurved stylet, is carefully introduced and advanced "around the corner" until in monitor view, then maneuvered past the vocal cords at which time the stylet is removed and the ETT juts forth and downward. [11] GlideScope® GVL [Figure 4], Cobalt, and Ranger, McGrath® Series 5 [Figure 5], and Storz® C-Mac D-Blade are examples of angulated blade videolaryngoscopes.
Figure 4: The GlideScope GVL

Click here to view
Figure 5: The McGrath Series 5

Click here to view


Tube/guide channel videolaryngoscopes use a guide channel to direct the preloaded ETT towards the glottis. Given the guide channel, a stylet is not necessary. All are designed for oral ETI using a standard ETT. They are highly portable given their small, directly attached video screens on the laryngoscope handle. Examples of tube/guide channel scopes are Pentax® AWS and Airtraq® . The Airtraq® uses an optical lens and if desired allows attachment of the video camera to permit viewing via monitor.


   Advantages Versus Disadvantages of VL Top


As mentioned, each VL device has its own unique advantages and disadvantages. However, there are generalized advantages and disadvantages to VL. [1],[3],[10]

Advantages

In general, most VL devices offer the following advantages: Unnecessary to align airway axes (oral-pharyngeal-laryngeal) to achieve line of sight; improved glottic visualization, especially in scenarios with limited mouth opening or neck mobility; higher ETI success rate with non-expert, and possibly expert, laryngoscopists; allows others to view the screen and/or help facilitate ETI (e.g., redirect cricoid pressure, acquire other airway devices); an effective tool for those who infrequently intubate as well as students learning to intubate; less cervical manipulation; possible awake assessment/intubation; and can provide an official record.

Disadvantages

Some disadvantages of using VL devices: Difficulty in passing ETT despite improved glottic visualization (especially with angulated blade); possible increased intubation time; variable learning curve; potential weakening in development/maintenance of DL skill set, especially in nonexperts of airway management; potential for false sense of security and lack of preparation for difficult airway; [3] two-dimensional view with loss of depth perception; obscured view by fogging and secretions on camera lens; more complicated; and expensive.


   Current Evidence on The Use of VL Top


Clinical performance in normal and difficult intubation

It is well established that VL devices improve laryngeal view as compared to DL in patients with suspected difficult intubation (DI) and simulated difficult airway scenarios. [3],[6],[9] But it is uncertain, whether this translates to increases in overall ETI success rates, especially when DL is difficult or fails. [7],[8],[9],[18]

For instance, two different observational studies of emergent airway management in the Emergency Department (ED) found DL (86-93% success rate) superior to VL with 71.4 [9] and 81% [8] success rates using GlideScope® . Interestingly, in Platts-Mills' study of 280 ED patients, nine VL failures were rescued by DL, and 17 DL failures were rescued by means other than VL (reason not given). [8] A recent retrospective study of 822 emergent intubations by Sakles et al., found ETI success rate with VL versus DL to be almost equivalent (84 vs 86%, respectively). [19] A similar result was found in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting by Ural et al., when comparing ETI success rates before and after implementation of VL for intubation. [20]

In contrast, some recent publications showed favorable results for VL with high rates of success after difficult or failed direct laryngoscopy using different videolaryngoscopes such as GlideScope® , [21],[22] C-Mac, [22] McGrath® Series 5, [23] Airtraq® , [24] and Pentax® AWS. [5] In their robust study involving 2,004 intubations; Aziz et al., demonstrated a high ETI success rate using GlideScope® in primary airway management (98%; 1,712 of 1,755), in predicted DI (96%; 1,377 of 1,428), and rescue following failed DL (94%; 224 of 239). [21] Using the Pentax® AWS, Asai et al., had a 99.3% (268 of 270) ETI success rate, and 95.7% (22 of 23) in predicted DI. [5] Noppens et al., used the McGrath® Series 5 on 61 patients following Macintosh DL with Cormack/Lehane (C/L) III or IV grades and resulted in 95% ETI success rate in these confirmed difficult airways. [23]

Niforopoulou et al., concluded in their 2010 topical literature review that VL did not offer anything more than Macintosh in easy DL with C/L grades I or II and increases intubation time. However, in difficult airways with C/L grade III or IV it was proven to convert "blind" views into one under visual control and achieved the same or higher ETI success rate with equal or faster intubation time. [2]

Despite the lack of uniformity and need for further investigation, VL continues to gain popularity both inside and outside the operating room (OR). It has quickly become a first line strategy for potential and/or encountered difficult intubation (DI). [2],[3],[4],[5] In some institutions and settings, it has even replaced DL as a substitute for routine cases requiring ETI. [3]

Short learning curve

For novices and experienced anesthesiologists alike, VL is easy to use, and the skills involved are easy to master. [3] It has been determined a 90% ETI success rate with DL requires intubation of 47-56 patients. [25] VL has a much shorter learning curve. Novices trained with Macintosh DL achieved 69 vs 55% ETI success rate with VL (Storz® V-Mac) versus DL, respectively; while anesthesiologists achieved 99.6% ETI success on first use of the videolaryngoscope. [15] With GlideScope® , inexperienced operators needed only a few (less than ten) intubations to achieve proficiency with ETI. [6] Anesthesiologists using the GlideScope for the first time had 100% ETI success rate, and 97% of patients were intubated on the first attempt. [26] Similar outcomes were found with Pentax® AWS where both experienced anesthesiologists and inexperienced operators found ETI to be much simpler when compared to Macintosh DL in manikin trials. [27] Also; a prospective, randomized, cohort study showed less user skill was required with Pentax® AWS compared to Macintosh, with inexperienced users yielding lower ETI failure rates and faster intubation times. [28]

Cervical spine concerns

A number of studies have been aimed at different videolaryngoscopes to determine their utility in unstable or limited mobility cervical spines. The results have been variable but promising. Two separate studies found less cervical spine motion using the Airtraq® when compared to Macintosh DL and suggested its use in patients with unstable or limited mobility cervical spines. [29],[30] When comparing GlideScope® to Macintosh DL using fluoroscopy, GlideScope® did not decrease cervical spine movement, but did reduce the need for optimization maneuvers in patients with manual in-line stabilization. [31],[32] GlideScope® has also been found to facilitate nasotracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. [33] The Pentax® AWS has also demonstrated less upper cervical spine movement, and even less when aided by gum bougie, as compared to DL. [34],[35]

Nonoperating room/off-site use

Patients requiring ETI in nonoperating room or off-site settings (ED, ICU, prehospital) are typically emergency situations associated with hemodynamic compromise. These patients often meet ASA III or IV classification, [36] and have a much higher risk of difficult laryngoscopy and intubation even when operators have adequate airway skills. [37] Furthermore, the risk of complications associated with poor glottic visualization (C/L grades III or IV) is twice as high outside versus inside the OR. [38]

These risks compound further when inexperienced or nonexpert providers are responsible for securing the airway under such challenging conditions. Studies with nonexperts have shown increased first-attempt success and decreased time to intubation with GlideScope® compared to DL. [6],[ 39-40] Paramedics described easier ETI when using VL rather than Macintosh DL in two manikin studies. [41],[42] In the field, paramedics using the GlideScope® Ranger performed successful ETI in less time and with less attempts as compared to DL, though the overall success rate was equivalent. [43] Therefore, VL technologies that improve visualization and ETI success rates, especially in nonexpert operators, could help minimize sequelae and maximize patient safety during laryngoscopy for ETI.

Obesity

Patients with morbid obesity (body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m 2 ) are more commonly associated with DI than normal-weight patients. [44] Maassen et al., randomized obese patients with three different videolaryngoscopes (GlideScope® Ranger, Storz® V-Mac, McGrath® Series 5) to compare to Macintosh DL. All VL devices offered equivalent or improved glottic views, with Storz® V-Mac yielding better overall satisfaction score, intubation time, number of intubation attempts, and necessity of extra adjuncts (e.g., stylet). [45] In a randomized trial of 106 morbidly obese patients, Airtraq® shortened the duration of tracheal intubation and prevented reductions in arterial oxygen saturation when compared to Macintosh DL. [46] Also, as a substitute to fiberoptic bronchoscopy in anticipated DI with morbidly obese patients, the GlideScope® , [47] Airtraq® , [48] and Pentax® AWS [49] have been successfully used in topicalized patients undergoing awake intubation.

Teaching

VL can serve as a teaching and supervising tool for tracheal intubation with its real-time displays during laryngoscopy. It allows for viewing and magnification of the airway anatomy and any associated anomalies. Instructors can provide feedback for novice laryngoscopists to overcome difficulties related to DL and tube insertion, and also help with airway manipulations if necessary. Macintosh-modified videolaryngoscopes allow novices to perform both direct and indirect laryngoscopy, while the instructor can take advantage of the monitor's view to provide guidance and feedback. [50]

Other VL applications

Awake intubation using VL not only has application in obese patients, but can be used in difficult airway situations warranting an awake inspection or intubation. Due to the decreased amount of pressure applied to the base of the tongue, topicalized awake patients can tolerate VL. However, further studies are needed to compare outcomes of VL to the gold standard fiberoptic bronchoscopy. [51]

Using VL to visualize and facilitate, a more confident ETT exchange has been described. Using the Airtraq® , exchange of ETT over a gum elastic bougie or Cook catheter was performed in critically ill, difficult intubation patients. [52] GlideScope® GVL has successfully been used in ETT exchange from nasotracheal to orotracheal in a patient with airway mass. [53]

Other reported applications of VL include foreign body removal from the hypopharynx, [54] intubating in the setting of epiglottitis, [55] placement of a double-lumen tube, [56] and facilitating percutaneous tracheostomy. [57]

Limitations and complications

Difficulty may be encountered with inserting certain VL devices into the oral cavity. The angulated blade of GlideScope® GVL requires a greater tilt of the handle to enter the oropharynx. Various patient factors (e.g., obesity, large chests/breasts, short neck, etc.) can make achieving this tilt a challenge. A similar problem can be seen with Storz® V-Mac due to its large handle with emerging cables. Certain techniques can be employed for these VL devices to overcome such shortcomings. For example, blade insertion of the GlideScope® GVL can be improved by further extending the atlantooccipital joint and rotating the handle 90° to the right. [26]

Despite an improved glottic view, ETT insertion may be problematic especially with angulated blade video laryngoscopes. [11],[26] This difficulty is because indirect laryngoscopy does not require alignment of the airway axes, thus the need for the ETT to be inserted 'around the corner'. Use of a stylet and proper contouring of ETT is needed to facilitate passage through the vocal cords, [11] though this is not needed in tube/guide channel videolaryngoscopes. Upon passing the vocal cords, the ETT may abut against the anterior aspect of the subglottic trachea. Further, maneuvers and adjuncts may be required to advance the ETT such as cricoid pressure, slight withdrawal of stylet, rotating the ETT, and use of gum elastic bougie. [2],[11]

Instrument insertion into the oropharynx and ETT insertion passed the vocal folds into the trachea can be rendered more difficult by certain physical factors. Using GlideScope® GVL, Aziz et al., found the strongest predictor for ETI failure was altered neck anatomy with presence of surgical scar, radiation changes, or a mass. [21]

A number of complications have been reported using videolaryngoscopes. Damage to the soft palate, [58] palatopharyngeal arch, [59] and palatoglossal arch [60],[61] has been associated with GlideScope® use. Some explanations for these injuries are using greater force than necessary, a rigid stylet, and blades that are too large. Also, injuries can occur by blind advancement of the styletted ETT before being in the video camera's field of view. [60] Another possibility is the operator placing all their attention on the monitor and blindly attempting instrument insertion into the oropharynx.


   The Future of VL Top


Despite the need for further studies regarding the optimal applications and overall outcomes, the future of VL is promising. Whether VL will replace traditional laryngoscopy is controversial. However, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has already incorporated VL as an adjunct to 'Alternative Difficult Intubation Approaches' in their practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. [62] It has further been suggested that VL may improve safety by avoiding many unnecessary attempts and facilitate learning of both DL and VL. [3] Thus, its role is still evolving. Though it is clear that VL expands the armamentarium not only for anesthesiologists but also for healthcare providers who are potentially involved in airway management.


   Conclusion Top


The approach to airway management has undergone a dramatic transformation since the advent of VL. Videolaryngoscopes have quickly gained popularity as an intubation device in a variety of clinical scenarios and settings, as well as in the hands of airway experts and nonexperts. Their indirect view of the upper airway improves glottic visualization, including in suspected or encountered difficult intubation. Yet, more studies are needed to determine whether VL actually improves ETI success rates, intubation times, and first-attempt success rates; and thereby a potential replacement to traditional direct laryngoscopy. Furthermore, advances in technology have heralded a wide array of models each with their own strengths, weaknesses, and optimal applications. Such limitations need to be better understood and alternative strategies should be available. Thus, the role of VL continues to evolve. Though it is clear VL expands the armamentarium not only for anesthesiologists but also for all healthcare providers potentially involved in airway management.

 
   References Top

1.Hurford W. The video revolution: A new view of laryngoscopy. Respir Care 2010;55:1036-45.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: A topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010;54:1050-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Paolini JB, Donati F, Drolet P. Review Article: Video-laryngoscopy: Another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management? Can J Anaesth 2013;60:184-91.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Aziz M. Use of video-assisted intubation devices in the management of patients with trauma. Anesthesiol Clin 2013;31:157-66.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Asai T, Liu EH, Matsumoto S, Hirabayashi Y, Seo N, Suzuki A, et al. Use of the Pentax-AWS in 293 patients with difficult airways. Anesthesiology 2009;110:898-904.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: Success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology 2009;110:32-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: Randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 2005;94:381-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW. A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:866-71.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Lim HC, Goh SH. Utilization of a GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubations in different emergency airway management settings. Eur J Emerg Med 2009;16:68-73.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Thong SY, Lim Y. Video and optic laryngoscopy assisted tracheal intubation--the new era. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009;37:219-33.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth 2005;52:191-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Stroumpoulis K, Pagoulatou A, Violari M, Ikonomou I, Kalantzi N, Kastrinaki K, et al. Videolaryngoscopy in the management of the difficult airway: A comparison with the Macintosh blade. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009;26:218-22.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Bucx MJ, Scheck PA, Van Geel RT, Den Ouden AH, Niesing R. Measurement of forces during laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1992;47:348-51.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology 2007;107:53-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Kaplan MB, Hagberg CA, Ward DS, Brambrink A, Chhibber AK, Heidegger T, et al. Comparison of direct and video-assisted views of the larynx during routine intubation. J Clin Anesth 2006;18:357-62.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Pott LM, Murray WB. Review of video laryngoscopy and rigid fiberoptic laryngoscopy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2008;21:750-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Asai T. Videolaryngoscopes: Do they truly have roles in difficult airways? Anesthesiology 2012;116:515-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. GlideScope (R) video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2012;59:41-52.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Sakles JC, Mosier JM, Chiu S, Keim SM. Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: A comparison of GlideScope((R)) video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. J Emerg Med 2012;42:400-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Ural K, Subaiya C, Taylor C, Ramadhyani U, Scuderi-Porter H, Nossaman BD. Analysis of orotracheal intubation techniques in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Resusc 2011;13:89-96.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, Fu RF, Dillman D, Brambrink AM. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the GlideScope in difficult airway management: An analysis of 2,004 GlideScope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology 2011;28:34-41.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Serocki G, Neumann T, Scharf E, Dörges V, Cavus E. Indirect videolaryngoscopy with C-MAC D-Blade and GlideScope: A randomized, controlled comparison in patients with suspected difficult airways. Minerva Anestesiol 2013;79:121-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Noppens RR, Mobus S, Heid F, Schmidtmann I, Werner C, Piepho T. Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 Videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2010;65:716-20.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Malin E, Montblanc Jd, Ynineb Y, Marret E, Bonnet F. Performance of the Airtraq laryngoscope after failed conventional tracheal intubation: A case series. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:858-63.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Konrad C, Schupfer G, Wietlisbach M, Gerber H. Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: Is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures? Anesth Analg 1998;86:635-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Xue FS, Zhang GH, Liu J, Li XY, Yang QY, Xu YC, et al. The clinical assessment of GlideScope in orotracheal intubation under general anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiol 2007;73:451-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Malik MA, O′Donoghue C, Carney J, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of the GlideScope, the Pentax AWS, and the Truview EVO2 with the Macintosh laryngoscope in experienced anaesthetists: A manikin study. Br J Anaesth 2009;102:128-34.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Tracheal intubation by non-anesthesia residents using the Pentax AWS airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 2009;21:268-71.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Turkstra TP, Pelz DM, Jones PM. Cervical spine motion: A fluoroscopic comparison of the AirTraq laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope. Anesthesiology 2009;111:97-101.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Hirabayashi Y, Fujita A, Seo N, Sugimoto H. A comparison of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy using the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscopes. Aneaesthesia 2008;63:635-40.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Turkstra TP, Craen RA, Pelz DM, Gelb AW. Cervical spine motion: A fluoroscopic comparison during intubation with Lighted Stylet, GlideScope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope. Anesth Analg 2005;101:910-5.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Robitaille A, Williams SR, Tremblay MH, Guilbert F, Theriault M, Drolet P. Cervical spine motion during tracheal intubation with manual in-line stabilization: Direct laryngoscopy versus GlideScope videolaryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 2008;106:935-41.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Lai HY, Chen IH, Chen A, Hwang FY, Lee Y. The use of the GlideScope for tracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Anaesth 2006;97:419-22.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Maruyama K, Yamada T, Kawakami R, Hara K. 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 Anaesth 2008;101:563-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Takenaka I, Aoyama K, Iwagaki T, Ishimura H, Takenaka Y, Kadoya T. Approach combining the airway scope and the bougie for minimizing movement of the cervical spine during endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 2009;110:1335-40.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 2005;103:33-9.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Griesdale DE, Bosma TL, Kurth T, Isac G, Chittock DR. Complications of endotracheal intubation in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:1835-42.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S. 3,423 emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital: Airway outcomes and complications. Anesthesiology 2011;114:42-8.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.Brown CA 3 rd , Bair AE, Pallin DJ, Laurin EG, Walls RM. National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) Investigators. Improved glottic exposure with the video Macintosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56:83-8.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.Shimada M, Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Nasotracheal intubation using GlideScope videolaryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope by novice laryngoscopists. Masui 2010;59:1318-20.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Nasim S, Maharaj CH, Malik MA, O′Donnell J, Higgins BD, Laffey JG. Comparison of the GlideScope and Pentax AWS laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by advanced paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation. BMC Emerg Med 2009;9:9.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Aziz M, Dillman D, Kirsch JR, Brambrink A. Video laryngoscopy with the Macintosh video laryngoscope in simulated prehospital scenarios by paramedic students. Prehosp Emerg Care 2009;13:251-5.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.Wayne MA, McDonnell M. Comparison of traditional versus video laryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care 2010;14:278-82.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.Gonzalez H, Minville V, Delanoue K, Mazerolles M, Concina D, Fourcade O. The importance of increased neck circumference to intubation difficulties in obese patients. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1132-6.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Maassen R, Lee R, Hermans B, Marcus M, van Zundert A. A comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: The Macintosh laryngoscope blade reduces, but does not replace, routine stylet use for intubation in morbidly obese patients. Anesth Analg 2009;109:1560-5.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Tual L, Polliand C, Kamoun W, El Housseini L, et al. Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: A randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Br J Anaesth 2008;100:263-8.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.Xue FS, Li CW, Zhang GH, Li XY, Sun HT, Liu KP, et al. GlideScope-assisted awake fiberoptic intubation: Initial experience in 13 patients. Anaesthesia 2006;61:1014-5.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Suzuki A, Toyama Y, Iwasaki H, Henderson J. Airtraq for awake tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 2007;62:746-7.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.Suzuki A, Kunisawa T, Takahata O, Iwasaki H, Nozaki K, Henderson JJ. Pentax-AWS (Airway Scope) for awake tracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth 2007;19:642-3.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.Kaplan MB, Ward DS, Berci G. A new video laryngoscope-an aid to intubation and teaching. J Clin Anesth 2002;14:620-6.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.Mihai R, Blair E, Kay H, Cook TM. A quantitative review and meta-analysis of performance of nonstandard laryngoscopes and rigid fibreoptic intubation aids. Anaesthesia 2008;63:745-60.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.Matioc AA, Lopukhin O. The Airtraq to facilitate endotracheal tube exchange in critically ill, difficult-to-intubate patient. J Clin Anesth 2007;19:485-6.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.Galgon RE, Ketzler JT. The GlideScope for videolaryngoscopy-assisted nasotracheal-to-orotracheal tube exchange in the intensive care unit in a patient with a known difficult airway. J Clin Anesth 2012;24:412-4.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.Corso RM, Agnoletti V, Piraccini E, Cicero GC, Vicini CV, Gambale G. The use of videolaryngoscopy for the emergency removal of hypopharyngeal foreign bodies. Anaesth Intensive Care 2013;41:273-5.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.Agnoletti V, Tenti G, Piraccini E, Corso RM, Leprotti E, Vicini C, et al. Successful combined use of videolaryngoscopy and pediatric stylet in an adult case of acute epiglottitis. J Emerg Med 2013;44:674-5.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.Cordier PY, Ponchel C, Ausset P. Videolaryngoscopy: Benefits for double-lumen tube insertion. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2012;31:980-2.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.Gillies M, Smith J, Langrish C. Positioning the tracheal tube during percutaneous tracheostomy: Another use for videolaryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:129.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.Hsu WT, Hsu SC, Lee YL, Huang JS, Chen CL. Penetrating injury of the soft palate during GlideScope intubation. Anesth Analg 2007;104:1609-10.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.Leong WL, Lim Y, Sia AT. Palatopharyngeal wall performation during GlideScope intubation. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008;36:870-4.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.Cooper RM. Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Can J Anesth 2007;54:54-7.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.Hirabayashi Y. Pharyngeal injury related to GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:175-6.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013;118:251-70.  Back to cited text no. 62
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]


This article has been cited by
1 Videolaryngoscopy – Theory and practice
C. Lyons,E.P. OæSullivan
Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Effects of videolaryngoscopes on cognitive workload during tracheal intubation performed by emergency residents
Nicolas Marjanovic,Julien Guilbot,Jean-Pierre Richer,Marie Dubocage,Jérémy Guenezan,Olivier Mimoz
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Jia Jiang,Dan-Xu Ma,Bo Li,An-Shi Wu,Fu-Shan Xue
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2019; 52: 6
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Functional analysis of vocal folds by transcutaneous laryngeal ultrasonography in patients undergoing thyroidectomy
Mamta Dubey,Amit K Mittal,Jiten Jaipuria,Manisha Arora,Ajay K. Dewan,Akhilesh Pahade
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hiroshi Hoshijima,Yohei Denawa,Asako Tominaga,China Nakamura,Toshiya Shiga,Hiroshi Nagasaka
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2018; 44: 69
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 A randomised clinical trial comparing the ‘sniffing’ and neutral position using channelled (KingVision® ) and non-channelled (C-MAC® ) videolaryngoscopes
C. Mendonca,N. Ungureanu,A. Nowicka,P. Kumar
Anaesthesia. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Association of prehospital intubation with decreased survival among pediatric trauma patients in Iraq and Afghanistan
Steven G. Schauer,Jason F. Naylor,Guyon J. Hill,Allyson A. Arana,Jamie L. Roper,Michael D. April
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 C-MAC D-Blade video laryngoscope for awake double lumen tube placement: A case report
A.K. Mittal,N. Goel,J. Dubey
Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Videolaryngoscopy in Neonates, Infants, and Children*
Onur Balaban,Joseph D. Tobias
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2017; 18(5): 477
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 A comparison of McGrath MAC® and standard direct laryngoscopy in simulated immobilized cervical spine pediatric intubation: a manikin study
Marcin Madziala,Jacek Smereka,Marek Dabrowski,Steve Leung,Kurt Ruetzler,Lukasz Szarpak
European Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 The visualization of glottis during intubation’s efforts in super obese patients: a comparison of total track video intubating laryngeal mask and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope
Tomasz Gaszynski
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Comparison of McGrath Series 3 and Macintosh Laryngoscopes for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Normal Airway by Inexperienced Anesthetists
Zi-Jia Liu,Jie Yi,Wen-Juan Guo,Chao Ma,Yu-Guang Huang
Medicine. 2016; 95(2): e2514
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Video laryngoscopes for all?
Emma James
British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2016; 77(7): 434
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision
Marcin Cierniak,Dariusz Timler,Andrzej Wieczorek,Przemyslaw Sekalski,Natalia Borkowska,Tomasz Gaszynski
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Airway Management in Ambulatory Anesthesia
Greta Gormley,Stephen Mannion
Current Anesthesiology Reports. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Direct Versus In...
   Classification
    Advantages Versu...
    Current Evidence...
   The Future of VL
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3465    
    Printed96    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded318    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 15    

Recommend this journal