Comparison of conventional laryngoscope with video laryngoscope.
Not Applicable
- Conditions
- Health Condition 1: null- Those requiring surgery
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2018/05/014150
- Lead Sponsor
- Gurleen Kaur
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Open to Recruitment
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 0
Inclusion Criteria
1. 120 patients of either sex
2. Age 20-70
3. ASA grade 1 and II
4. MPG I, II, III and IV
Exclusion Criteria
1. Patient refusal
2. Age < 20 and > 70 years
3. ASA III and IV
4. Patients with pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents ( e.g. pregnancy, diabetes )
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method 1. Duration of laryngoscopy and intubation <br/ ><br>2. Cormack â?? Lehane grading. <br/ ><br>3. Evaluate ease of intubation.Timepoint: 0-10 minutes after intubation
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method 1. Number of attempts and any optimisation manoeuvres required for intubation. <br/ ><br>2. Hemodynamic response. <br/ ><br>3. Any trauma caused due to laryngoscopy.Timepoint: During same time frame