A comparative evaluation of conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and C-MAC video laryngoscope using an aerosol box: A prospective randomized study.
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Status
- Not yet recruiting
- Sponsor
- Enrollment
- 120
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- The primary outcome measure shall be the time required for a successful tracheal intubation.
Study Overview
Brief Summary
A comparative evaluation of conventional Macintoshlaryngoscope and C-MAC video laryngoscope using an aerosol box: A prospectiverandomized study.
The incidence of respiratory illnesses is on the rise.In most of these infections, airway secretions and aerosol generation is thesource of spread [1]. Often healthcare workersin the peripheral regions work under low resource settings and don’t haveadequate protective equipment to safeguard themselves against infections byemploying various innovations in their practice and protocols. The Aerosol box is one such innovation which is acheap and easy to make acrylic box that can be used as a barrier between thepatient and the healthcare provider.
Videolaryngoscopes have been preferred choice inmany studies because of various advantages and assumption that they take lessertime to intubate and offer better glottic visualization. However, in patientswith normal airway and without aerosol box, it has been found that a goodvisualization is not always related to a good success rate. The success rateand intubation times were comparable to conventional laryngoscopes in many suchstudies. The evidence on realpatients is lacking and there is relative scarcity of literature on patients assubjects. It is imperative to know the best way to intubate a patient using anaerosol box in order to save time and resources.
Therefore, wedesigned this study with the primary aim to compare the intubation time between aconventional Macintosh laryngoscope and C-MAC videolaryngoscope using anaerosol box in patients with normal airway.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Computer generated randomization
- Masking
- Participant Blinded
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 20.00 Year(s) to 50.00 Year(s) (—)
- Sex
- All
Inclusion Criteria
- •ASA Grade I & II, BMI.
- •<30, MP class – 1 & 2.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Decreased inter-incisor distance (<3 cm), Short thyromental distance (<6 cm), Any facial anomaly, Fixed flexion deformity, Patient at risk of pulmonary aspiration.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
The primary outcome measure shall be the time required for a successful tracheal intubation.
Time Frame: Insertion of laryngoscope till immediately post intubation
Secondary Outcomes
- The number of intubation attempts, Intubation difficulty score, The rate of successful placement of the TT in the trachea, Number of optimization maneuvers required (use of a bougie, external laryngeal pressure) to aid in tracheal intubation, The Cormack Lehane grade at laryngoscopy, Hemodynamic changes during intubation, The Percentage Of Glottic Opening (POGO) score at laryngoscopy, Immediate complications