Mcgrath Videolaryngoscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope in Patients With Manual In-line Stabilization

Not Applicable

• Conditions: Anesthesia, General
• Interventions: Device: Group DL; Device: Group ML

• Registration Number: NCT03516539
• Lead Sponsor: Hallym University Medical Center

Brief Summary

Video laryngoscopy provides easily a good laryngeal view compared to direct laryngoscopy. It is particularly, useful in patients with anticipated difficult intubation, and also widely used for educational purposes. Among video laryngoscopy, Mcgrath is a recently-developed, portable video laryngoscopy with a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and disposable curved blade.

Mcgrath is known to provide excellent laryngeal visibility even in case of anticipated-difficult and anticipated-unsuccessful intubation as well as normal airway management. However, compared with direct laryngoscopy, the success rate of intubation and the time required for anticipated difficult intubation have been reported conflicting results in previous studies. The aim of this study was to compare the intubation success rate, the intubation time and the ease of use with Mcgrath video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy during intubation.

Detailed Description

1. In the operating room, all patients are monitored with an electrocardiograph, noninvasive blood pressure, pulse oximeter, capnograph and Bispectral index (BIS) monitor. After pre-oxygenation with 100% oxygen for 1 minute, intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanyl is administrated and followed by rocuronium (0.6mg/kg). When patients are lost their consciousness, manual mask ventilation is proceeded with 100% oxygen for 2 minutes.

2. Transoral endotracheal intubation is performed using Mcgrath videolaryngoscope (Group ML) and direct laryngoscope (Group DL) using manual in-line stabilization. At this time, the time required for intubation is measure by other medical personnel not engaged in this research.

3. The anesthesiologist assesses Cormack Lehane laryngeal visual field,external laryngeal manipulation, intubation difficulty scales (IDS) and the difficulty of intubation.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2017-12-11
• Status Verified: 2018-04
• Study First Submitted: 2018-04-24
• Study First Submitted QC: 2018-04-24
• Last Update Submitted: 2018-04-24
• Study First Posted: 2018-05-04
• Last Update Posted: 2018-05-04
• Primary Completion: 2018-06-30
• Study Completion: 2018-07-07

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: UNKNOWN
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 100

Inclusion Criteria

• Patients scheduled for general anesthesia requiring tracheal intubation. Patients are aged 19 to 70 years and are American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I, II.

Exclusion Criteria

• Patients requiring rapid sequence intubation Patients with poor teeth or high risk of aspiration pneumonia Cervical spine pathology, pharyngeal pathology

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Group DL	Group DL	direct Macintosh laryngoscope
Group ML	Group ML	Mcgrath videolaryngoscopy

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Intubation success rate	1 hour	success or failure of intubation

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Intubation difficulty score	1 hour	difficulty at the time of intubation. (easy /moderate/ difficult)
Complications	1 day	oral bleeding, teeth or lip bleeding
Time required for intubation	1 hour	time until end tidal carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement after laryngeal blade passing through patient's teeth

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital; 🇰🇷 Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, Republic of