Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The King Vision laryngoscope is a newly developed video laryngoscope. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the efficacy of the King Vision in novice personnel.

Methods

Thirty-one registered nurses with no previous experience with tracheal intubation were enrolled. Participants made 6 consecutive attempts at intubation of the manikin’s trachea with a Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) and the King Vision with channeled blade (KVC) and non-channeled blade (KVNC) in a randomized cross-over fashion. The Grading Scale of Intubation Difficulty (GSID) was rated on a 5-point scale.

Results

Overall median (range) intubation times (sec) were 16.9 (8.0–60.0) with the MAC, 20.5 (7.2–60.0) with the KVC, and 60.0 (11.0–60.0) with the KVNC. The KVNC required significantly longer intubation time compared with the MAC or the KVC (p < 0.001). Success rate with the KVNC was 47.3 %, which was significantly inferior to that with the MAC (91.4 %) or KVC (86.6 %). Median GSID was 2 (range 1–5) with the KVC and 3 (1–4) with the MAC, which were both significantly lower than the 4 (2–5) with the KVNC (p < 0.001). Esophageal intubation with the MAC occurred in 18 of 186 attempts, whereas no incidents of esophageal intubation occurred with the KVC or KVNC.

Conclusion

The KVC facilitated intubation by novice personnel without incidence of esophageal intubation. However, intubation times, success rates, and GSID scores were similar to the values obtained with the MAC. These findings suggest that the KVC, but not the KVNC, could be used as an alternative device for intubation by novice personnel.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang HE, Seitz SR, Hostler D, Yealy DM. Defining the learning curve for paramedic student endotracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005;9:156–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gerbeaux P. Should emergency medical service rescuers be trained to practice endotracheal intubation? Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1864–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulcaster JT, Mills J, Hung OR, MacQuarrie K, Law JA, Pytka S, Imrie D, Field C. Laryngoscopic intubation: learning and performance. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:23–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garza AG, Gratton MC, Coontz D, Noble E, Ma OJ. Effect of paramedic experience on orotracheal intubation success rates. J Emerg Med. 2003;25:251–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K, Reeve CS, Robinson N, Stewart CJ, Trudeau T. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1207–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:191–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maharaj CH, O’Croinin D, Curley G, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the Airtraq or the Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: a randomised, controlled clinical trial. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:1093–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hirabayashi Y, Seo N. Airtraq optical laryngoscope: tracheal intubation by novice laryngoscopists. Emerg Med J. 2009;26:112–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Marco P, Scattoni L, Spinoglio A, Luzi M, Canneti A, Pietropaoli P, Reale C. Learning curve of the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation by novice laryngoscopists: a clinical study. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:122–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nasim S, Maharaj CH, Malik MA, O’Donnell J, Higgins BD, Laffey JG. Comparison of the Glidescope and Pentax AWS laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by advanced paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation. BMC Emerg Med. 2009;9:9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirabayashi Y. Seo N Tracheal intubation by non-anesthesia residents using the Pentax-AWS airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth. 2009;21:268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Woollard M, Mannion W, Lighton D, Johns I, O’meara P, Cotton C, Smyth M. Use of the Airtraq laryngoscope in a model of difficult intubation by prehospital providers not previously trained in laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:1061–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Miki T, Inagawa G, Kikuchi T, Koyama Y, Goto T. Evaluation of the Airway Scope, a new video laryngoscope, in tracheal intubation by naive operators: a manikin study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:1378–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dyson A, Harris J, Bhatia K. Rapidity and accuracy of tracheal intubation in mannequin: comparison of the fibreoptic with the Bullard laryngoscope. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65:268–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim Y, Lim TJ, Liu EH. Ease of intubation with the GlideScope or Macintosh laryngoscope by inexperienced operators in simulated difficult airways. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51:641–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koyama Y, Inagawa G, Miyashita T, Kikuchi T, Miura N, Miki T, Kurihara R, Kamiya Y, Goto T. Comparison of the Airway Scope, gum elastic bougie and fibreoptic bronchoscope in simulated difficult tracheal intubation: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:936–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sreevathsa S, Nathan PL, John B, Danha RF, Mendonca C. Comparison of fibreoptic-guided intubation through ILMA versus intubation through LMA-CTrach. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:734–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maharaj CH, Higgins BD, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Evaluation of intubation using the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthetists in easy and simulated difficult laryngoscopy–a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:469–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Savoldelli GL, Schiffer E, Abegg C, Baeriswyl V, Clergue F, Waeber JL. Comparison of the glidescope, the McGrath, the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airways*. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:1358–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Ringl H, Machata AM, Chiari A, Kimberger O. A comparison of paediatric airway anatomy with the SimBaby high-fidelity patient simulator. Resuscitation. 2011;82:468–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Rössler B, Ringl H, Müller MP, Kimberger O. Degrees of reality: airway anatomy of high-fidelity human patient simulators and airway trainers. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1204–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rai MR, Popat MT. Evaluation of airway equipment: man or manikin? Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support and sponsorship: none declared.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, 213-8507, Kanagawa, Japan

    Yuki Akihisa, Koichi Maruyama, Rieko Yamada, Akira Ogura & Tomio Andoh

  2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Kanagawa, Japan

    Yukihide Koyama

Authors
  1. Yuki Akihisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koichi Maruyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yukihide Koyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rieko Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Akira Ogura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tomio Andoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichi Maruyama.

About this article

Cite this article

Akihisa, Y., Maruyama, K., Koyama, Y. et al. Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study. J Anesth 28, 51–57 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-013-1666-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-013-1666-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation