A Comparison of GlideScope® Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation

• DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9
• Publication Date: 2009-03-05T18:31:42Z
• Authors: Philip M. Jones; Kevin P. Armstrong; Paidrig M. Armstrong; Richard A. Cherry; Christopher C. Harle; Jason Hoogstra; Timothy P. Turkstra
• Keywords: Nasotracheal intubation; Laryngoscopes; Video laryngoscope

In Brief BACKGROUND: this study, we compared the effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy (DL) and GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) for nasotracheal intubation, as judged by time to intubation (TTI—the primary outcome) ease intubation. METHODS: Seventy patients requiring elective surgery were randomly allocated with GVL or DL. TTI was assessed a blinded observer. Operators until start laryngoscopy. A Visual Analog Scale The number attempts, failures, glottic grades, amount bleeding, usage Magill forceps, severity postoperative sore throat recorded. RESULTS: median 23.2 s faster (43.5 s, interquartile range [IQR]: 39.8–67.3) than DL (66.7 IQR: 53.8–89.9), P = 0.0023. Nasotracheal easier (Visual 10 mm, 5.5–18, vs 20 10–32, 0.0041). incidence moderate severe significantly reduced in group (9% 34%, 0.018). Glottic exposure better GVL. forceps not used group, but 49% < 0.0001. bleeding similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared DL, has superior performance characteristics when demonstrates an important reduction throat. clear role routine IMPLICATIONS: prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial conducted assess GlideScope When laryngoscopy, videolaryngoscopy faster, easier, resulted much lower postoperatively.