comparison between two video laryngoscope
Not Applicable
Completed
- Conditions
- Health Condition 1: null- ASA Physical Status I and II
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2018/04/013458
- Lead Sponsor
- Department of Anaesthesiology
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Completed
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 60
Inclusion Criteria
ASA Grade I and II
Weight between 45-70 Kg
Patients planned for Elective Surgery
Exclusion Criteria
Previous history of multiple/ failed intubation.
Head and neck surgery.
Valvular heart disease.
CAD / Uncontrolled hypertension.
Presence of raised intracranial pressure.
Cervical spine injury.
Predicted difficult laryngoscopy except for all class of MP Grades
Any pathology of the oral cavity that will obstruct the insertion of device.
Mouth opening <2.5cm.
Potentially full stomach patients (trauma, morbid obesity, pregnancy, history of gastric regurgitation and heart burn) and at risk of esophageal reflux (hiatus hernia).
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To compare the intubation time using the two devices. <br/ ><br>Timepoint: 2 years
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To compare success rate at first attempt <br/ ><br>To compare the glottic view using Cormack and Lehane Grading. <br/ ><br>To compare the hemodynamic response i.e., heart rate and mean arterial B.P. after laryngoscopy and intubation. <br/ ><br>To Grade the ease of tracheal intubation using these devices. <br/ ><br>To compare the number of adjustment maneuvers required for successful intubation. <br/ ><br>To look for complications like post-extubation blood staining on endotracheal tube and incidence of postoperative sore throatTimepoint: 2yrs