Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscope in ear–nose and throat surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

Endotracheal intubation procedure employed during general anaesthesia is the most effective way for keeping the airways and respiration under control and has low risk of complications. We have aimed in this study to compare the first-attempt success and duration of the endotracheal intubation process and its effects on haemodynamics using the Macintosh laryngoscope and the GlideScope video laryngoscope.

Methods

In this prospective randomized single-centre study, 100 patients of 18–65 years of age, and classified within the American Society of Anaesthesiologists’ (ASA) I–II risk groups before elective ear–nose and throat surgery were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, designated as Group M, to be intubated using the Macintosh laryngoscope, and as Group G, to be intubated using the GlideScope video laryngoscope. The Mallampati scores, Cormack–Lehane classifications, intubation duration, number of attempts at intubation, the haemodynamic response and the complications were recorded.

Results

There were not intergroup differences with respect to the number of intubation attempts, the Mallampati and Cormack–Lehane classifications. Duration of intubation was found to be longer in group G. The haemodynamic response values of group M were higher than those of group G. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of intubation attempts, two of the patients in group M were intubated in the second attempt.

Conclusion

In our study, despite the longer intubation times in group G, the haemodynamic response was significantly lower in this group. It is believed that especially in cases with vital requirement of haemodynamic stability, the GlideScope video laryngoscope would be safer to employ.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rose DK, Cohen MM (1996) The incidence of airway problems depends on the definition used. Can J Anesth 43:30–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henderson J (2010) Airway management in the adult. In: Miller RD (ed) Miller’s anesthesia, vol. 2, 7th edn. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 1573–1610

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bansal S, Pawar M (2002) Haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension; effect of intravenous esmolol with or without lidocaine. İnt J Obstet Anesth 11:4–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hagberg CA, Vogt-Harenkamp CC (2007) Ianucci DG successful airway management of a patient with a known difficult airway with the direct coupler interface videolaryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 14:620–626

    Google Scholar 

  5. Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher L et al (2010) Miller’s Anesthesia, 7th edn. Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mihai R, Blair E, Kay H, Cook TM (2008) A quantitative review and meta-analysis of performance of non-standard laryngoscopes and rigid fibre optic intubation aids. Anaesth 63:745–760

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi GS, Lee EH, Lim CS, Yoon SH (2011) A comparative study on the usefulness of the GlideScope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways. Korean J Anesthesiol 60(5):339–343

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sakles JC, Rodgers R, Keim SM (2008) Optical and video laryngoscopes for emergency airway management. Intern Emerg Med 3:139–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Merli G (2010) Videolaryngoscopy: is it only a change of view? Minerva Anestesiol 76:569–571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nishikawa K, Matsuoka H, Saito S (2009) Tracheal intubation with the Pentax-AWS reduces changes of hemodynamic responses and bispectral index scores compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. J Neurosurg Anesth 21:292–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xue FS, Zhang GH, Li XY, Sun HT, Li P, Li CW, Liu KP (2007) Comparison of hemodynamic responses to orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 19:245–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carassiti M, Zanzonico R, Cecchini S, Silvestri S, Cataldo R, Agro FE (2012) Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth 108(1):146–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Amini Shahram, Shakib Majid (2015) Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing cesarean section with general anesthesia: application of Glidescope® Videolaryngoscope versus direct Laryngoscope. Anesth Pain Med 5(2):e21836. doi:10.5812/aapm.21836 (Published online; PMCID: PMC4389105)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dashti M, Amini S, Azarfarin R, Totonchi Z, Hatami M (2014) Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation with GlideScope(®) video-laryngoscope in patients with untreated hypertension. Res Cardiovasc Med 3(2):e17598. doi:10.5812/cardiovascmed.17598

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pournajafian AR, Ghodraty MR, Faiz SH, Rahimzadeh P, Goodarzynejad H, Dogmehchi E (2014) Comparing GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope regarding hemodynamic responses during orotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Iran Red Crescent Med J 16(4):e12334. doi:10.5812/ircmj.12334

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H (2009) Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology 110(1):32–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andersen LH, Rovsing L, Olsen KS (2011) GlideScope videolaryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 55(9):1090–1097

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Narang AT, Oldeg PF, Medzon R, Mahmood AR, Spector JA, Robinett DA (2009) Comparison of intubation success of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the difficult airway using high-fidelity simulation. Simul Healthc 4(3):160–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dörges V (2010) Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol 27(1):24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi GS, Lee EH, Lim CS, Yoon SH (2011) A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways. Korean J Anesthesiol 60(5):339–343

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lim Y, Yeo SW (2005) A comparison of the GlideScope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway. Anaesth Intensiv Care 33(2):243–247

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M (2005) The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 94(381–84):50

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macnair D, Baraclough D, Wilson G, Bloch M, Engelhardt T (2009) Pediatric airway management: comparing the Berci-Kaplan Video Laryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy. Paediatr Anaesth 19:577–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Donald EG, David L, James M (2012) GlideScope videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth 59:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department, Ministry of Health, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    G. Misirlioglu & O. Sen

Authors
  1. G. Misirlioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Misirlioglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Misirlioglu, G., Sen, O. Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscope in ear–nose and throat surgery. Ir J Med Sci 185, 729–733 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1393-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1393-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation