Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review
1
Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia
2
School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4215, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(17), 2383; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11172383
Submission received: 29 June 2023
/
Revised: 11 August 2023
/
Accepted: 21 August 2023
/
Published: 24 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Developments in Endotracheal Intubation and Airway Management)
Abstract
:Videolaryngoscopes (VLs) have emerged as a safety net offering several advantages over direct laryngoscopy (DL). The aim of this study is to expand on our previous study conducted in 2016, to deduce which VL is most preferred by clinicians and to highlight any changes that may have occurred over the past 7 years. An extensive systematic literature review was performed on Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Studies for articles published between September 2016 and January 2023. This review highlighted similar results to our study in 2016, with the CMAC being the most preferred for non-channelled laryngoscopes, closely followed by the GlideScope. For channelled videolaryngoscopes, the Pentax AWS was the most clinically preferred. This review also highlighted that there are minimal studies that compare the most-used VLs, and thus we suggest that future studies directly compare the most-used and -preferred VLs as well as the specific nature of blades to attain more useful results.
1. Introduction
Airway management is one of the most critical tasks an anaesthetist will encounter in their practice. Facing an unanticipated difficult airway is a complex and stressful task for any anaesthetist and requires great skill to overcome [1]. The primary goal of Endotracheal Intubation (ETI) is to establish a patent and safe airway whilst avoiding complications such as dental injuries or trauma to the anatomy surrounding the trachea. Over the years, there has been an evolution in the shape, size and material of laryngoscopes to optimise the effectiveness and, therefore, the safety of ETI [2]. Currently, direct laryngoscopy (DL) is standard practice for ETI, despite not always yielding a positive outcome [3]. A negative outcome can be referred to as a ‘can’t intubate, can’t ventilate” scenario, potentially requiring front-of-neck access, possibly leading to complications such as hypoxia and neurological injury [4]. Although significant advancements in DL have taken place over the past few decades, predicting a difficult airway remains a challenging task for anaesthetists.
Despite extensive pre-anaesthetic assessments and precautions being undertaken, no single parameter can accurately predict an unanticipated difficult airway [5]. Hence, it is vital that clinicians are always prepared to encounter an unanticipated difficult airway, with the literature suggesting that approximately 90% of difficult intubations are unanticipated by clinicians [6].
Therefore, in problematic situations, a safety net for anaesthesiologists is essential to provide the utmost care for the patient. Contemporarily, videolaryngoscopes (VLs) have provided a safeguard for anaesthetists due to the advantages they provide over DLs. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a modern technique that uses a camera and a light source mounted on a laryngoscope blade to enable a magnified and improved view of the larynx and glottis on a screen. With a growing body of evidence and significant technological advances, VLs have recently proven to be a popular choice of device for ETI by clinicians. A meta-analysis published in 2021 concluded that there are several advantages highlighted in using a VL over a DL [3]:
- Higher first-pass success: VLs increased the chance of first-pass success (successful intubation on first attempt) when compared to DLs.
- Fewer failed intubations: VLs resulted in fewer failed intubations when compared to DLs, even in anticipated difficult airways.
- Fewer hypoxemic events: VLs showed a reduction in hypoxemic events when compared to DLs.
- Increased glottic views: certain VLs provided an improved visualisation of the glottis in accordance with the Cormack–Lehane grade, which can reduce the likelihood of adverse events such as failed intubation or airway trauma.
- Less sore throat: there was a lower incidence of patient-reported sore throat post-intubation using VLs, hence possibly reducing patient anxiety with intubation.
With an increase in VL use over the past decade, it is important to juxtapose the safety and efficacy of the different types of VLs. The ideal VL should deliver a high chance of first-pass successful intubation with good glottic views in a short amount of time and be readily available and cost-effective. Our previous study published in 2016 identified that the most clinically preferred VLs were the Pentax-AWS VL for channelled VLs and the Karl Storz C-MAC for non-channelled VLs [7].
The aim of this paper is to expand on our previous study to establish which VL is most preferred by clinicians, to further aid decision-making for safer and more effective ETI, and to ascertain whether any changes have occurred over the past 7 years in clinician preference.
2. Materials and Methods
Eligibility and Search Strategy: An extensive systematic literature review was performed on Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Studies for articles published between September 2016 and January 2023. The search terms included, but were not limited to: laryngoscope, laryngoscop*, videolaryngoscope, video-laryngoscope, “video laryngoscope”, videolaryngoscop*, video-laryngoscop*, “video laryngoscop*”, glidescope, macintosh, cmac, mcgrath, airtaq, “king vision”, “pentax aws”. Results were further refined to cohort studies and randomised controlled trials. A manual review of references was also performed to ensure an elaborate search. We restricted our search to English-only articles. A PRISMA checklist was used to ensure an optimal strategy, with a summary provided in Figure 1. This study was registered in PROSPERO.
Study Selection and Data Extraction: We included studies that compared either of the following between two or more videolaryngoscopes: (a) improved glottis view (either Cormack–Lehane grade or percentage of glottic opening); (b) time to successful intubation; (c) first-pass intubation success rate; (d) use of corrective manoeuvres or adjuncts; e) final outcomes judged by authors as “preferred” and/or “best” VL. Based on the factors ‘a–e’, we determined which VL was clinically preferred for each study. Data were manually extracted and cross-reviewed by the authors to optimise interrater reliability. These data were further collated to evaluate the favoured percentage of each VL. The studies chosen were grouped into either clinical patient studies or simulation studies. Table 1 demonstrates the VLs identified through our comprehensive study selection and data extraction phase.
3. Results
Our search yielded 3841 studies (Medline—794 results, Embase—792 results, Cochrane Library—1543 results, Web of Science—712 results). After the removal of duplicates, studies that had undergone erratum, trials registered but not yet published and meeting abstracts not yet published, 1405 articles remained. Publications that contained unrelated context or did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from this study.
This review included 81 studies with a total of 50 surgical studies conducted on 6274 patients, and 31 simulation studies conducted with 1353 participants. Table 2 highlights the key elements of each surgical study, while Table 3 highlights the key elements of the simulation studies. Importantly, we identified the clinically preferred VL and blade type in each of these study groups, as demonstrated in the respective tables.
In studies evaluating surgical patients, the CMAC was the most-used VL, with 25 out of 50 studies investigating it, closely followed by the McGrath VL (19 out of 50 studies). Of note, in surgical patients, the CMAC Macintosh blade was used 14 times, the CMAC angulated D blade was used 8 times, and the CMAC Miller blade was used 3 times. In the studies that investigated the McGrath VL, 13 used the Macintosh-style blade and 6 used the angulated blade. For studies evaluating manikins, the GlideScope was the most commonly used VL, with 14 out of 31 studies investigating it, all of which used an acute-angulated blade.
Table 4 summarises the review, with less commonly used VLs excluded. The CMAC was found to be the most-preferred non-channelled VL overall (preferred in 70% of studies that investigated CMAC), closely followed by the GlideScope (preferred in 67% of studies that investigated GlideScope). It is interesting to note that the most frequently used non-channelled VLs all scored > 50% preference in surgical studies, yet only the CMAC and GlideScope scored > 50% in simulation studies.
For channelled laryngoscopes, the AWS was the most-preferred overall, with 69% of studies that evaluated this VL preferring it; however, only 50% of surgical studies preferred this VL.
When analysing the data, it was established that the most-used VLs were not often directly compared. Out of the 50 studies reviewing clinical scenarios, the CMAC and GlideScope were only directly compared three times, and when reviewing simulation studies, they were only compared two times. Out of the clinical studies, the CMAC was preferred in two out of the three studies, whilst in the simulation studies the CMAC was preferred in one study, and the other found the CMAC and GlideScope to be similar. When comparing the CMAC to Pentax AWS, no clinical study directly compared the two VLs, and the one simulation study that compared them showed a preference for the Pentax AWS. Figure 2 demonstrates the most commonly preferred VLs.
4. Discussion
This review aimed to establish which VL is most clinically preferred, with the goal of expanding on our previous review published in 2016. Similar to previously, the Pentax AWS was the most preferred overall for channelled VLs, and the CMAC was the most preferred overall for non-channelled VLs.
However, our review discovered that the more recent literature suggests that other VLs are also gaining popularity among clinicians. For instance, our previous review suggested that the GlideScope acute-angled blade was preferred in only 41% of clinical studies and 7% of simulation studies, whereas our updated review highlights that it was preferred in 69% of clinical studies and 64% of simulation studies. Likewise, the efficacy of the McGrath VL appears to have increased drastically from the previous review, increasing from a preference rate of 25% to 63% in clinical studies, and 17% to 44% in simulation studies. We hypothesise that this increase is due to the ever-expanding use, availability and familiarity with VLs. Further to this, McGrath Blades have released Macintosh-style blades, which clinicians have historically been more familiar with. With regards to our study, it is noted that a McGrath Macintosh-style blade was used in 13 of 19 clinical studies and 7 of 9 simulation studies. Again, this change may be a reason for the growing popularity and preference for the McGrath VL. Similarly, GlideScope has also released Macintosh-style blades; however, the studies in this review all appear to use the acute-angle blade. Ultimately, clinicians are more likely to perform better with and prefer a VL that they are familiar with and use more often.
The literature suggests that acute-angle blades should be reserved for predicted or known difficult airway situations, especially in patients with an anterior larynx [89]. Thus, the use of acute-angle VLs may be detrimental, in comparison to standard Macintosh-style blades, for the intubation of normal airways. One such reason is that acute-angle VLs only provide an indirect view and present with a sharp angle, resulting in the ETT needing to be introduced with a device such as a stylet to ensure it is able to be manipulated around the steep angle [89]. Thus, one limitation of the papers studied in this review is the comparison of acute-angle blades to Macintosh-style blades, as the clinical indication for each is different.
In addition to this, there were a minimal number of studies that directly compared the most-preferred VLs. For instance, the two most-preferred non-channelled VLs, the CMAC and GlideScope, were only directly compared three times in clinical studies and two times in simulation studies. Similarly, when attempting to discuss the CMAC and Pentax AWS, no clinical study directly compared these two VLs and only one simulation study directly compared them. This limits the generalisability of the current literature, as a direct comparison and evaluation of the most-preferred VLs are not able to be conducted based on the current literature. One potential reason hypothesised is the cost involved with comparing the more expensive and most-preferred VLs. Further to this, the financial implications of acquiring, using, and maintaining VLs may limit certain departments’ ability to use VLs, and we suggest they check what is available and suitable for their needs. We also propose that the current literature favours the most commonly used VLs, and true clinician preference would be better ascertained in future studies evaluating more head-to-head comparisons and thus, more direct parameters for clinician preference.
Furthermore, as discussed in our previous review, it must be acknowledged that clinical studies conducted on patients will differ rather significantly compared to simulation studies performed on manikins. This is highlighted in the stark difference in the performance of some VLs in clinical studies versus simulation studies. If we base our results purely on clinical studies, it would highlight that the King Vision non-channelled and Airtraq VLs may be the most suitable to use. However, both these VLs performed quite poorly in manikin models and had a <35% preference in their respective studies. Furthermore, with a minimal direct comparison between these VLs and the aforementioned most-preferred VLs, this would not be generalisable. The CMAC, GlideScope and Pentax AWS were the only VLs preferred in ≥50% of both clinical and simulation studies.
For future use and teaching prospects, it is important to recognise extra components that may render particular VLs more preferable. For instance, the Macintosh-style blades used in the CMAC VLs can be used as both a direct and indirect laryngoscope as the video monitor is mounted separately to the laryngoscope. Therefore, in a scenario where a clinician wants to teach with this VL, the trainee can use a direct view for education, whilst the teacher can observe through the monitor to ensure the adequate placement of the endotracheal tube. Similarly, if a difficulty is encountered, a supervisor can take over, or the anaesthesia assistant can anticipate what to do next, such as preparing a bougie. Anecdotally, this method of laryngoscopy ensures safer management and education. Similarly, the McGrath VL can serve the same teaching process; however, a key difference is that the monitor is attached to the top of the VL itself, rather than mounted separately. Furthermore, different manufacturers offer different specifications in their VLs. Some provide the option for multiple types of blades or attachments such as fibreoptic scopes to be used with one VL handle, others offer longer battery life, whereas some offer the option for single-use vs reusable blades. These additional features make particular VLs more appealing, depending on the clinicians’ preferences and requirements.
A limitation to this article is that VLs were purely chosen based on their functionality in intubating a patient or manikin, without considering the resources/equipment used. For future studies, it is important to compare the cost burden for hospitals alongside clinician preference to ensure a more complete approach towards selecting the most ideal VL. Studies in the future should also be more transparent with the specific details of the VLs being used, including the type of blade, size, reusability, and/or single-use nature of the VLs. We also advocate for future studies to more thoroughly identify patient and institutional factors that may lead to the use of, or preference for, a particular VL, with the aim to provide transparency to readers regarding scenarios where particular VLs may be more favourable.
Furthermore, as aforementioned, a limitation in the current literature is the lack of comparison between the most-used and -preferred laryngoscopes. In addition to this, studies in the future should compare VLs with Macintosh-style blades to other VLs with Macintosh-style blades, and likewise acute-angle blades with acute-angle blades. This will allow for more streamlined and consistent results. Essentially, we advocate for standardisation criteria to ensure the appropriate comparison of devices. The studies reviewed also did not consistently describe the experience level of the operators performing intubation, and suggestions for future studies would be to highlight this to ensure transparency, as it is well-known that clinicians will prefer and perform better with equipment that they are more familiar with. To achieve optimal clinical outcomes, we advocate that clinicians choose the VL that they are most comfortable with depending on the clinical situation, as each VL offers its own set of advantages and disadvantages. We believe that VLs should become the gold standard for ETI, with several advantages highlighted over DLs. Furthermore, VLs can also allow us to transition from blind insertion techniques for procedures including temperature probes and nasogastric tubes to ‘vision-guided’ insertion, ultimately limiting the potential for wrong space insertion, with future studies potentially exploring this field.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this review is to critically assess and compare the effectiveness of VLs in modern airway management, both in real patients and simulation scenarios involving manikins. This study was performed as an extension of our 2016 analysis, to deduce whether there were any changes in clinician preference over the past 6 years. This review highlighted similar results to our study in 2016, with the CMAC still being the most preferred for non-channelled laryngoscopes, closely followed by the GlideScope, and the Pentax AWS being the most preferred for channelled laryngoscopes based on the current literature. We hope this audit increases the awareness of both individual practitioners and departments of anaesthesia, to highlight the importance of VL use and to lay a platform for future studies to expand knowledge in this field.
Author Contributions
Conceptualisation, A.V.Z.; Methodology, I.N. and V.N.; Software, I.N. and V.N.; Validation, A.V.Z., I.N. and V.N.; Formal Analysis, I.N.; Investigation, V.N.; Resources, I.N. and V.N.; Data curation, V.N.; Writing—original draft preparation, I.N. and V.N.; Writing—review and editing, A.V.Z., I.N. and V.N.; Visualisation, V.N.; supervision, A.V.Z.; Project Administration, A.V.Z. and I.N.; Funding Acquisition, A.V.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the librarians of Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service for their support and help in this review.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Wang, J.M.; Ma, E.L.; Wu, Q.P.; Tian, M.; Sun, Y.Y.; Lin, J.; Peng, L.; Xu, Q.; Wei, W.; Tan, H.; et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Approach for Management of Patients with Potential Difficult Mask Ventilation and Tracheal Intubation: A Multi-center Randomized Trial. Chin. Med. J. 2018, 131, 631–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Landefeld, K.R.; Koike, S.; Ran, R.; Semler, M.W.; Barnes, C.; Stempek, S.B.; Janz, D.R.; Rice, T.W.; Russell, D.W.; Self, W.H.; et al. Effect of Laryngoscope Blade Size on First Pass Success of Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Adults. Crit. Care Explor. 2023, 5, e0855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansel, J.; Rogers, A.M.; Lewis, S.R.; Cook, T.M.; Smith, A.F. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 4, CD011136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McClelland, G.; Smith, M.B. Just a routine operation: A critical discussion. J. Perioper. Pract. 2016, 26, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Detsky, M.E.; Jivraj, N.; Adhikari, N.K.; Friedrich, J.O.; Pinto, R.; Simel, D.L.; Wijeysundera, D.N.; Scales, D.C. Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. JAMA 2019, 321, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norskov, A.K.; Wetterslev, J.; Rosenstock, C.V.; Afshari, A.; Astrup, G.; Jakobsen, J.C.; Thomsen, J.L.; Bottger, M.; Ellekvist, M.; Schousboe, B.M.; et al. Effects of using the simplified airway risk index vs usual airway assessment on unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation—A cluster randomized trial with 64,273 participants. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 116, 680–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Zundert, A.; Town, C.; Dagleish, L.; Reynolds, H. Which Videolaryngoscope Should We Use in Airway Management? J. Anesth. Perioper. Med. 2016, 3, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; El Tahan, M.R.; Khidr, A.M. Comparison of the Macintosh, GlideScope R, Airtraq R, and King VisionTM laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016, 82, 1278–1287. [Google Scholar]
- Alvis, B.D.; Hester, D.; Watson, D.; Higgins, M.; St Jacques, P. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016, 82, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, L.; Liao, M.; Li, L.; Qian, W.; Hu, R.; Chen, K.; Zhang, C.; Yao, W. McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs Airtraq DL videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation: A randomized trial. Medicine 2016, 95, e5739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.M.; Doley, K.; Athar, M.; Raza, N.; Siddiqi, O.A.; Ali, S. Comparison of endotracheal intubation time in neutral position between C-Mac® and Airtraq® laryngoscopes: A prospective randomised study. Indian J. 2017, 61, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belze, O.; Lepage, E.; Bazin, Y.; Kerourin, P.; Fusciardi, J.; Remerand, F.; Espitalier, F. Glidescope versus Airtraq DL for double-lumen tracheal tube insertion in patients with a predicted or known difficult airway: A randomised study. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2017, 34, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleine-Brueggeney, M.; Buttenberg, M.; Greif, R.; Nabecker, S.; Theiler, L. Evaluation of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a simulated difficult airway: A randomised, controlled trial. Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Kwak, H.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Chang, M.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y. Comparison of the Pentax AirwayScope and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with a normal airway. Medicine 2017, 96, e8713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raza, N.; Hasan, M.; Ahmed, S.M.; Bano, S.; Athar, M. A comparative study of McGrath and Airtraq videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017, 33, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sato Boku, A.; Sobue, K.; Kako, E.; Tachi, N.; Okumura, Y.; Kanazawa, M.; Hashimoto, M.; Harada, J. The usefulness of the McGrath MAC laryngoscope in comparison with Airwayscope and Macintosh laryngoscope during routine nasotracheal intubation: A randomaized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017, 17, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shravanalakshmi, D.; Bidkar, P.U.; Narmadalakshmi, K.; Lata, S.; Mishra, S.K.; Adinarayanan, S. Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2017, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, R.; Kumar, N.; Jain, A. A randomised trial to compare Truview PCD®, C-MAC® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in paediatric airway management. Asian J. Anesthesiol. 2017, 55, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tseng, K.Y.; Lu, I.C.; Shen, Y.C.; Lin, C.H.; Chen, P.N.; Cheng, K.I. A comparison of the video laryngoscopes with Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation. Asian J. Anesthesiol. 2017, 55, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vadi, M.G.; Roddy, K.J.; Ghazal, E.A.; Um, M.; Neiheisel, A.J.; Applegate, R.L., 2nd. Comparison of the GlideScope Cobalt R and Storz DCI R Video Laryngoscopes in Children Younger Than 2 Years of Age During Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Trainee Evaluation Study. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2017, 33, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargas, M.; Pastore, A.; Aloj, F.; Laffey, J.G.; Servillo, G. A comparison of videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in predicted difficult airway: A feasibility study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdelgalel, E.F.; Mowafy, S.M.S. Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2018, 34, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajimi, J.; Nishiyama, J.; Masuda, R.; Shibata, T.; Suzuki, T. Airtraq DL and AWS-200 for Double-lumen Endotracheal Tube Intubation: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Tokai J. Exp. Clin. Med. 2018, 43, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Cavus, E.; Janssen, S.; Reifferscheid, F.; Caliebe, A.; Callies, A.; von der Heyden, M.; Knacke, P.G.; Doerges, V. Videolaryngoscopy for Physician-Based, Prehospital Emergency Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Comparison of Different Blade Types Using A.P. Advance, C-MAC System, and KingVision. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1565–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chanchayanon, T.; Saewong, L. Comparison of glidescope and McGrath video laryngoscope for intubation and adverse events by anesthetic residents. J. Med. Assoc. Thail. 2018, 101, 803–807. [Google Scholar]
- El-Tahan, M.R.; Khidr, A.M.; Gaarour, I.S.; Alshadwi, S.A.; Alghamdi, T.M.; Al’ghamdi, A. A Comparison of 3 Videolaryngoscopes for Double-Lumen Tube Intubation in Humans by Users With Mixed Experience: A Randomized Controlled Study. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2018, 32, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Kamal, G.; Gupta, A.; Sehgal, N.; Bhatla, S.; Kumar, R. Comparative evaluation of CMAC and Truview picture capture device for endotracheal intubation in neonates and infants undergoing elective surgeries: A prospective randomized control trial. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2018, 28, 1148–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendonca, C.; Ungureanu, N.; Nowicka, A.; Kumar, P. A randomised clinical trial comparing the ‘sniffing’ and neutral position using channelled (KingVision®) and non-channelled (C-MAC®) videolaryngoscopes. Anaesthesia 2018, 73, 847–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, G.; Philip, V.M.; Kumar, V.R.H.; Sivashanmugam, T. Suitability of Nasotracheal Intubation using King Vision and TruviewPCD Video Laryngoscopes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth. Essays Res. 2018, 12, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, J.Y.; Chae, Y.J.; Lee, Y.B.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Kim, D.H. A comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope, McGrath video laryngoscope, and Pentax Airway Scope in paediatric nasotracheal intubation. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbas, S.; Ozkan, A.S.; Karaaslan, E. A Comparison of McGrath MAC Versus C-MAC Videolaryngoscopes in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Bariatr. Surg. Pract. Patient Care 2019, 14, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blajic, I.; Hodzovic, I.; Lucovnik, M.; Mekis, D.; Novak-Jankovic, V.; Stopar Pintaric, T. A randomised comparison of C-MACTM and King Vision R videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in 180 obstetric patients. Int. J. Obstet. Anesth. 2019, 39, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chae, Y.J.; Kim, D.H.; Park, E.J.; Oh, J.; Yi, I.K. A comparison of McGrath MAC, Pentax AWS, and Macintosh direct laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation: A randomized controlled trial. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2019, 15, 1121–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markham, T.H.; Nwokolo, O.O.; Guzman-Reyes, S.; Medina-Rivera, G.; Gumbert, S.D.; Cai, C.; Burnett, T.; Syed, T.A.; Hagberg, C.A. A comparison of the king vision® and glidescope® video intubation systems in patients at risk for difficult intubation. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care 2019, 28, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roh, G.U.; Kwak, H.J.; Lee, K.C.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y. Randomized comparison of McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope, and Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with manual in-line stabilization. Can. J. Anaesth. 2019, 66, 1213–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahajanandan, R.; Dhanyee, A.S.; Gautam, A.K. A comparison of King vision video laryngoscope with CMAC D-blade in obese patients with anticipated difficult airway in tertiary hospital in India—Randomized control study. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 35, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suzuki, K.; Kusunoki, S.; Tanigawa, K.; Shime, N. Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e024927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Liu, J.; Suo, L.; Zhou, C.; Sun, Y.; Jiang, H. A randomized controlled comparison of non-channeled king vision, McGrath MAC video laryngoscope and Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019, 19, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brozek, T.; Bruthans, J.; Porizka, M.; Blaha, J.; Ulrichova, J.; Michalek, P. A Randomized Comparison of Non-Channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium Versus Channeled KingVisionTM Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Obese Patients with BMI > 35 kg.m−2. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, P.; Zhou, R.; Lu, Z.; Hang, Y.; Wang, S.; Huang, Z. GlideScope R versus C-MAC R(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: A randomized, controlled, prospective trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020, 20, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, G.; Gupta, S.; Mehta, N.; Dhingra, J.S. Comparative Evaluation of McGrath MAC, Truview Video Laryngoscopes and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Surgery under General Anaesthesia. Anesth. Essays Res. 2020, 14, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappu, A.; Sharma, B.; Jain, R.; Dua, N.; Sood, J. A randomised comparative study of “videoendoscope” with the Truview EVO2, C-MAC D blade videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Indian J. Anaesth. 2020, 64, S186–S192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, R.; Mallepally, A.R.; Sakrikar, G.; Marathe, N.; Rathod, T. Comparison of TruView and King Vision video laryngoscopes in subaxial cervical spine injury: A randomized controlled trial. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2020, 11, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandrashekaraiah, M.M.; Sahitya, V.A.; Narayan, P.; Adeel, S. Simulated difficult airway: Cmac d blade or glidescope? Sri Lankan J. Anaesthesiol. 2021, 29, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandy, J.; Pillai, R.; Mathew, A.; Philip, A.V.; George, S.P.; Sahajanandan, R. A randomized clinical trial comparing the King Vision (channeled blade) and the CMAC (D blade) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 37, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, A.; Singh, P.; Gupta, N.; Kumar Malhotra, R.; Girdhar, K.K. Comparative efficacy of C-MACR Miller videolaryngoscope versus McGrathR MAC size “1” videolaryngoscope in neonates and infants undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2021, 31, 1089–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mani, N.; Palanisamy, N.; Zachariah, M.; George, S.K.; Dsilva, A.A.; Johns, J.R. C-MAC D-blade vs airtraq for intubation with manual inline axial stabilisation—A randomised clinical trial. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2021, 15, UC01–UC04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sepmiko, J.; Senapathi, T.G.A.; Wiryana, M.; Kurniyanta, I.P.; Widnyana, I.M.G.; Sutawan, I.B.K.J. The efficacy of O-Mac®, patent video laryngoscope, and conventional laryngoscope for intubation in the operating room. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2021, 9, 646–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sultana, F.; Nikhar, S.A.; Durga, P. Comparison of Macintosh laryngoscope, non- channelled (C-MAC video-laryngoscope) and channelled laryngoscope (Airtraq) for intubation in lateral position—A prospective randomized controlled study. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care 2021, 40, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, R.; Mian, N.; Masri, S.N.N.S.; Mahdi, S.N.M.; Nie, Y.C.; Nor, N.M. Glidescope® versus c-mac® video laryngoscopy in pediatric intubation. Does time matter? Iran. J. Pediatr. 2021, 31, e108316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, N.; Sarma, R.; Vig, S.; Kumar, V.; Gupta, A.; Mishra, S. Comparison of C-MAC and McGrathMAC Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Normal Airway by Donned Anaesthesiologists Using an Intubation Box During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective, Randomized Study. Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reanim. 2022, 50, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haldar, R.; Kannaujia, A.K.; Shamim, R.; Mishra, P. A comparison of endotracheal intubation characteristics between Macintosh, CMAC, and Smart Trach Video laryngoscope: A randomized prospective clinical trial. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2022, 19, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jayadi, J.; Veterini, A.S.; Kusuma, E.; Waloejo, C.S.; Airlangga, P.S.; Semedi, B.P. Comparison of Effectiveness between Wycope Video Laryngoscope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, and Direct Laryngoscope in Intubation of Elective Surgery Patients. Acta Med. 2022, 51, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karadag Erkoc, S.; Yildirim Guclu, C.; Buyuk, S.; Bermede, O.; Erkent, F.D.; Yilmaz, A.A. Comparison of C-MAC vs. McGrath video laryngoscopes on glottic exposure and endotracheal intubation success with stylet usage in obese patients. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 5763–5773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumar, A.; Taluja, A.; Saxena, B.; Dwivedi, P. A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study. Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reanim. 2022, 50, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suryatheja, R.; Sinha, R.; Kumar, K.R.; Ranjan Ray, B.; Chowhan, M.G.; Pandey, R.K.; Darlong, V.; Punj, J. Comparison of time to intubate and intubation conditions with CMAC Miller blade size 1 and CMAC Macintosh blade size 2 in pediatric patients-A prospective randomized controlled study. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care 2022, 45, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Tan, L.Z.; Toh, H.; Foo, C.W.; Wijeratne, S.; Hu, H.; Seet, E. Comparing the first-attempt tracheal intubation success of the hyperangulated McGrath R X-blade vs the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope in patients with cervical immobilization: A two-centre randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2022, 36, 1139–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altun, D.; Ozkan-Seyhan, T.; Orhan-Sungur, M.; Sivrikoz, N.; Camci, E. Comparison of 4 Laryngoscopes in 2 Difficult Airway Scenarios: A Randomized Crossover Simulation-Based Study. Simul. Healthc. 2016, 11, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, Z.I.; Turna, C.; Gumus, N.E.; Toker, K.; Solak, M. Intubation of a Paediatric Manikin in Tongue Oedema and Face-to-Face Simulations by Novice Personnel: A Comparison of Glidescope, Airtraq and Direct Laryngoscopy. Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reanim. 2016, 44, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Tahan, M.R.; Al’ghamdi, A.A.; Khidr, A.M.; Gaarour, I.S. Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes for double-lumen tubes intubation in simulated easy and difficult airways: A randomized trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016, 82, 1050–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hippard, H.K.; Kalyani, G.; Olutoye, O.A.; Mann, D.G.; Watcha, M.F. A comparison of the Truview PCD and the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video-laryngoscopes to the Miller blade for successfully intubating manikins simulating normal and difficult pediatric airways. Paediatr. Anesth. 2016, 26, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.W.; Lee, K.R.; Hong, D.Y.; Baek, K.J.; Lee, Y.H.; Park, S.O. Efficacy of various types of laryngoscope (direct, Pentax Airway Scope and GlideScope) for endotracheal intubation in various cervical immobilisation scenarios: A randomised cross-over simulation study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, W.; Lee, Y.; Kim, C.; Lim, T.H.; Oh, J.; Kang, H.; Lee, S. Comparison of the Pentax Airwayscope, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope during Chest Compression According to Bed Height. Medicine 2016, 95, e2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nakanishi, T.; Shiga, T.; Homma, Y.; Koyama, Y.; Goto, T. Comparison of the force applied on oral structures during intubation attempts by novice physicians between the Macintosh direct laryngoscope, Airway Scope and C-MAC PM: A high-fidelity simulator-based study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schroder, H.; Zoremba, N.; Rossaint, R.; Deusser, K.; Stoppe, C.; Coburn, M.; Rieg, A.; Schalte, G. Intubation performance using different laryngoscopes while wearing chemical protective equipment: A manikin study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, M.; Bai, S.J.; Lee, K.Y.; Oh, E.; Kim, H.J. Comparing McGRATH R MAC, C-MAC R, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes Operated by Medical Students: A Randomized, Crossover, Manikin Study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 8943931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodnick, R.; Zitek, T.; Galster, K.; Johnson, S.; Bledsoe, B.; Ebbs, D. A Comparison of Paramedic First Pass Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate of the VividTrac VT-A 100, GlideScope Ranger, and Direct Laryngoscopy Under Simulated Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization Conditions in a Cadaveric Model. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2017, 32, 621–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Kang, H.; Oh, J.; Lim, T.H.; Lee, Y.; Kim, C. Comparison of pentax-AWS®, Glidescope®, and King Vision® for diff icult-airway intubation in manikins model by paramedics. Hong Kong J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 24, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owada, G.; Mihara, T.; Inagawa, G.; Asakura, A.; Goto, T.; Ka, K. A comparison of the Airtraq R, McGrath R, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for difficult paediatric intubation: A manikin study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriege, M.; Pirlich, N.; Ott, T.; Wittenmeier, E.; Dette, F. A comparison of two hyperangulated video laryngoscope blades to direct laryngoscopy in a simulated infant airway: A bicentric, comparative, randomized manikin study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018, 18, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oshika, H.; Koyama, Y.; Taguri, M.; Maruyama, K.; Hirabayashi, G.; Yamada, S.M.; Kohno, M.; Andoh, T. Supraglottic airway device versus a channeled or non-channeled blade-type videolaryngoscope for accidental extubation in the prone position: A randomized crossover manikin study. Medicine 2018, 97, e11190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chew, S.H.; Lim, J.Z.M.; Chin, B.Z.B.; Chan, J.X.; Siew, R.C.H. Intubation with channeled versus non-channeled video laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airway by junior doctors in an out-of-hospital setting: A crossover manikin study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, N.; Johnson, M.; Priddis, K.; Ray, S.; Chigaru, L. Comparative evaluation of AirtraqTM and GlideScope® videolaryngoscopes for difficult pediatric intubation in a Pierre Robin manikin. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2019, 178, 1105–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raimann, F.J.; Tepperis, D.M.; Meininger, D.; Zacharowski, K.; Schalk, R.; Byhahn, C.; Weber, C.F.; Mutlak, H. Comparing Four Video Laryngoscopes and One Optical Laryngoscope with a Standard Macintosh Blade in a Simulated Trapped Car Accident Victim. Emerg. Med. Int. 2019, 2019, 9690839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaszynski, T.M. A Comparison of a Standard Macintosh Blade Laryngoscope, Pentax-AWS Videolaryngoscope and Intubrite Videolaryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation in Manikins in Sitting and Prone Positions: A Randomized Cross-Over Study. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moritz, A.; Leonhardt, V.; Prottengeier, J.; Birkholz, T.; Schmidt, J.; Irouschek, A. Comparison of Glidescope® GoTM, King VisionTM, Dahlhausen VL, I-ViewTM and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romito, J.W.; Riccio, C.A.; Bagley, C.A.; Minhajuddin, A.; Barden, C.B.; Michael, M.M.; Bhoja, R.; Mootz, B.L.; Skrivanek, G.D.; Klein, K.W.; et al. Cervical Spine Movement in a Cadaveric Model of Severe Spinal Instability: A Study Comparing Tracheal Intubation with 4 Different Laryngoscopes. J. Neurosurg. Anesthesiol 2020, 32, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Votruba, J.; Brozek, T.; Blaha, J.; Henlin, T.; Vymazal, T.; Donaldson, W.; Michalek, P. Video Laryngoscopic Intubation Using the King VisionTM Laryngoscope in a Simulated Cervical Spine Trauma: A Comparison Between Non-Channeled and Channeled Disposable Blades. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yi, I.K.; Kwak, H.J.; Lee, K.C.; Lee, J.H.; Min, S.K.; Kim, J.Y. Comparison of McGrath, Pentax, and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin by novices: A randomized crossover trial. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2020, 25, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ataman, A.K.; Altıntas, E. Comparison of a commercial 3D fabricated laryngoscope (Airangel®) with a widely-used video laryngoscope (Glidescope®): Randomized controlled cross-over study. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care 2021, 40, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Decamps, P.; Grillot, N.; Le Thuaut, A.; Brule, N.; Lejus-Bourdeau, C.; Reignier, J.; Lascarrou, J.B. Comparison of four channelled videolaryngoscopes to Macintosh laryngoscope for simulated intubation of critically ill patients: The randomized MACMAN2 trial. Ann. Intensive Care 2021, 11, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, A.; Trikha, A.; Ayub, A.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Aravindan, A.; Gupta, N.; Prakash, K.; Aggarwal, R.; Ganesh, V.; Soni, K.D.; et al. Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care 2021, 38, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moritz, A.; Holzhauser, L.; Fuchte, T.; Kremer, S.; Schmidt, J.; Irouschek, A. Comparison of Glidescope Core, C-MAC Miller and conventional Miller laryngoscope for difficult airway management by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in a simulated Pierre Robin sequence: A randomized crossover manikin study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, D.H.; Wagner, E.M.; Hu, J.S.; Tobin, M.R.; Cronin, A.J.; Couperus, K.S.; April, M.D.; Schauer, S.G.; Naylor, J.F. New Versus Old, The i-View Video Laryngoscope Versus the GlideScope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial. Med. J. 2021, 81–89. Available online: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med19&AN=34449866 (accessed on 20 August 2023).
- Vig, S.; Bhan, S.; Gupta, N.; Meena, J.; Bhatnagar, S. Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2021, 15, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, N.; Kabra, P.; Mandal, S.; Gupta, A.; Sarma, R.; Malhotra, R.K. Comparative evaluation of King Vision videolaryngoscope channeled and non-channeled blades with direct laryngoscope for intubation performance and skill retention by medical students: A randomized cross over two period study. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2022, 18, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Er, A.; Caglar, A.; Citlenbik, H.; Akgul, F.; Ulusoy, E.; Oren, H.; Yiotalmaz, D.; Duman, M. Which Device Is Favorable for Intubation Attempts of Pediatric Residents on Four Different Pediatric Airway Simulations? Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2022, 38, e272–e277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, B.; Ratre, B.K.; Garg, R.; Meena, J.K.; Singh, R.; Bhatnagar, S. Comparison between C-MAC and King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) for tracheal intubation in aerosol-prevention intubation box for COVID-19 patients: A manikin-based study. Indian J. 2022, 66, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karalapillai, D.; Darvall, J.; Mandeville, J.; Ellard, L.; Graham, J.; Weinberg, L. A review of video laryngoscopes relevant to the intensive care unit. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 18, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
PRISMA identification, screening and selection of articles.
Figure 2.
Images of the most-preferred VLs. (Left to Right): CMAC (D-Blade attachment), Pentax AWS and GlideScope.
Figure 2.
Images of the most-preferred VLs. (Left to Right): CMAC (D-Blade attachment), Pentax AWS and GlideScope.
Table 1.
A range of videolaryngoscopes used for airway management.
| Manufacturer | Address | Videolaryngoscope | Blade Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| AirAngelBlade.org, AirAngel Project Online 3D-Printed Videolaryngoscopes | USA | AirAngel blade 3D-printed | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Airlangga university | Surbaya, Indonesia | Wycope | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Dahlhausen | Köln, Germany | Dahlhausen | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| Industry Design Registration of Indonesia: HKI. KI.05.01.02.P00202101656 and A00202100589 | Indonesia | O-Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| Intersurgical | Berkshire, United Kingdom | I-view | Non-Channelled, Macintosh |
| Karl Storz | Tuttlingen, Germany | DCI; C-MAC; C-MAC D-blade; C-MAC Pocket Monitor; CMAC Miller blade | Non-channelled, Macintosh, Miller and Acute-angled |
| King Systems Ambu, A/S | Ballerup, Denmark | King Vision VL channelled; non-channelled; aBlade channelled; aBLade non-channelled; Paediatric aBlade | Channelled/Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Medtronic Operational Headquarters | Minneaopolis, USA | McGrath Mac, McGrath Mac X-Blade | Non-channelled, Macintosh and acute-angulated |
| Pentax-AWS, Hoya Corporation | Tokyo, Japan | Pentax Airway Scope | Channelled |
| Prodol Meditec S.A. | Vizcaya, Spain | Airtraq; Airtraq double lumen | Channelled |
| Salter Labs | California, USA | Intubrite | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| Smart Trach Medicare | Lucknow, India | Smart Trach | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Soma Technology International | Bloomfield, USA | McGRATH Series 5 | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Truphatek International ltd. | Netanya, Israel | TruView; Truview EVO2; Truview PCD | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Tuoren Medical | Henan, China | TUORen | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| Venner Medical | Kiel, Germany | Venner APA channelled; non-channelled | Channelled/Non-channelled, Macintosh and Acute-angled |
| Verathon Medical | Bothell, WA, USA | GlideScope; GlideScope Cobalt; Glidescope Advanced Video Laryngoscope | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| Vivid Medical | Palo Alto, CA, USA | VividTrac VT-A100 | Channelled |
Table 2.
Outcomes of comparative studies in clinical patients using different types of videolaryngoscopes.
Table 2.
Outcomes of comparative studies in clinical patients using different types of videolaryngoscopes.
| Year | First Author | No. of Patients | Setting | Intubator | Number and Types of Videolaryngoscopes Used | Outcomes Based On: A: Improved Glottis View B: Faster Time to Successful Intubation C: Higher First Attempt Intubation Success D: Less Use of Manoeuvres or Adjuncts E: Other | Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscope | Blade Type of Most-Preferred VL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Al-Ghamdi [8] | 86 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 3: GS, AT, KV-C | A: Equal B: GS > KV-C > AT C: Equal D: Equal E: Less sore throat in AT and KV-C than GS | GS for primary outcomes | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2016 | Alvis [9] | 64 | Surgical | Anaesthetic Staff | 2: McGrath Mac, KV-C | A: Equal B: McGrath Mac C: McGrath Mac D: Equal | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2016 | Wan [10] | 90 | Double Lumen Tube Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Series 5 (Acute), AT-DL | A: Equal B: AT C: Equal D: Equal | AT | Channelled |
| 2017 | Ahmed [11] | 60 | Surgical Difficult patients in Neutral Position | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, AT | A: Equal B: CMAC C: Equal D: Equal E: Less haemodynamic changes in CMAC | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2017 | Belze [12] | 72 | Double Lumen Tube Surgical with difficult airway | Anaesthetists | 2: GS, AT | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | GS = AT | GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled AT = Channelled |
| 2017 | Kleine-Brueggeney [13] | 480 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 3: KV-NC, AT, APA | A: KV-NC > AT > APA B: AT > KV-NC > APA C: KV-NC > AT > APA D: - | KV-NC | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2017 | Lee [14] | 140 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac, AWS | A: AWS B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | AWS | Channelled |
| 2017 | Raza [15] | 60 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: AT, McGrath | A: Equal B: AT C: Equal D: - | AT | Channelled |
| 2017 | Sato Boku [16] | 60 | Surgical Nasotracheal Intubation | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac, AWS | A: Equal B: McGrath Mac C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2017 | Shravanalakshmi [17] | 135 | Surgical with Cervical Spine Immobilisation | Anaesthetists | 3: CMAC, CMAC-D, KV-NC | A: KV-NC > CMAC-D B: CMAC > CMAC-D C: Equal D: Equal E: Ease of Laryngoscope insertion CMAC > KV-NC > CMAC-D | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2017 | Singh [18] | 150 | Paediatric Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, TV-PCD | A: TV-PCD B: CMAC C: Equal D: TV-PCD | TV-PCD | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2017 | Tseng [19] | 105 | Surgical Nasotracheal Intubation | Anaesthetists | 2: GS, AWS | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | GS = AWS | GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled AWS = Channelled |
| 2017 | Vadi [20] | 93 | Paediatric Surgical with Cervical Spine Immobilisation | Anaesthetic Trainees | 2: GS-Cobalt, DCI | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: - | GS-Cobalt = DCI | GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled DCI = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2017 | Vargas [21] | 42 | Surgical Difficult Airway | Anaesthetists | 2: Imago-V-C, GS | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Imago-V E: Less force required with Imago-V-C | Imago-V-C | Channelled |
| 2018 | Abdelgalel [22] | 120 | Intensive Care Unit | ICU Physicians | 2: GS, AT | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: - | GS = AT | GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled AT = Channelled |
| 2018 | Ajimi [23] | 60 | Double Lumen Tube Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: AT, AWS | A: Equal B: AT C: Equal D: - | AT | Channelled |
| 2018 | Cavus [24] | 168 | Pre-hospital | Emergency Physicians | 3: CMAC-PM, KV-C, APA | A: Equal B: Equal C: CMAC-PM + APA > KV-C D: - E: Handling concerns with KV-C | CMAC-PM + APA | CMAC-PM = Non-channelled, Acute-angled APA = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2018 | Chanchayanon [25] | 40 | Surgical | Anaesthetic Residents | 2: GS, McGrath Series 5 (Acute) | A: Equal B: GS C: Equal D:- | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2018 | El-Tahan [26] | 133 | Double Lumen Tube Surgical | Anaesthetists | 3: GS, AT, KV-C | A: Equal B: AT > GS C: Equal D: AT > GS | AT | Channelled |
| 2018 | Gupta [27] | 80 | Surgical Neonates and Infants | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC-Miller, TV-PCD | A: Equal B: CMAC-Miller C: CMAC-Miller D: AT > GS | CMAC-Miller | Non-channelled, Miller |
| 2018 | Mendonca [28] | 200 | Surgical Neutral and ‘Sniffing’ | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-C, CMAC-D | A: KV-C > CMAC-D in Neutral B: Equal C: Equal D: - E: Modified Difficult Intubation Score Equal | KV-C | Channelled |
| 2018 | Mishra [29] | 80 | Nasotracheal Intubation Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-NC, TV-PCD | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | KV-NC = TV-PCD | KV-NC = Non-channelled, Acute-angled TV-PCD = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2018 | Yoo [30] | 106 | Paediatric Nasotracheal Intubation | Anaesthetists | 2: AWS, McGrath Mac | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | AWS = McGrath Mac | AWS = Channelled McGrath Mac = Non-channelled Macintosh |
| 2019 | Akbas [31] | 80 | Morbidly Obese Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac, CMAC | A: Equal B: CMAC C: Equal D: Equal E: Better Haemodynamic Response in CMAC | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Blajic [32] | 180 | Obstetric Caesareans | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, KV-C | A: KV-C B: Equal C: Equal D: CMAC E: Easier to use | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Chae [33] | 123 | Nasotracheal Intubation Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: AWS, McGrath Mac | A: McGrath Mac B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Markham [34] | 225 | Anticipated Difficult Airway Surgical | Anaesthetic Residents | 3: GS-AVL, KV-C, KV-NC | A: Equal B: Equal C: GS-AVL + KV-NC > KV-C D: Equal | GS-AVL + KV-NC | GS-AVL = Non-channelled, Acute-angled KV-NC = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2019 | Roh [35] | 120 | Nasotracheal Intubation with Manual In-line Stabilisation Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: AWS, McGrath Mac | A: Equal B: McGrath Mac C: Equal D: Equal E: Less Bleeding McGrath Mac | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Sahajanandan [36] | 63 | Anticipated Difficult Airway in Obese Patients Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-C, CMAC-D | A: Equal B: Equal C: CMAC-D D: - | CMAC-D | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2019 | Suzuki [37] | 287 | Emergency Intubation Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit | Emergency Physicians, Intensive Care Physicians, Anaesthetists and Residents | 3: KV-C, AWS, McGrath Mac | A: - B: Equal C: AWS + McGrath Mac > KV-C D: - | AWS + McGrath Mac | AWS = Channelled McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Zhu [38] | 94 | Nasotracheal Intubation Anticipated Difficult Airway | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-NC, McGrath Mac (acute) | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | KV-NC = McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Acute-angled McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2020 | Brozek [39] | 110 | Obese Patients Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-C, GS | A: Equal B: Equal C: GS D: Equal | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Huang [40] | 89 | Double Lumen Tube Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: GS, CMAC-D | A: CMAC-D B: CMAC-D C: Equal D: CMAC-D | CMAC-D | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Kaur [41] | 120 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac, TV | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath Mac = TV | McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh TV = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Pappu [42] | 120 | Surgical Difficult Airway | Anaesthetists | 2: TV-EVO2, CMAC-D | A: Equal B: CMAC-D C: - D: CMAC-D | CMAC-D | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Sen [43] | 60 | Surgical with Cervical Spine Immobilisation | Anaesthetists | 2: TV, KV-NC | A: Equal B: KV-NC C: Equal D:- E: Easier Intubation with KV-NC | KV-NC | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2021 | Chandrashekaraiah [44] | 60 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: GS, CMAC-D | A: Equal B: GS C: Equal D: - | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2021 | Chandy [45] | 100 | Surgical with Cervical Spine Immobilisation | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-C, CMAC-D | A: - B: Equal C: Equal D: KV-C E: KV-C Easier | KV-C | Channelled |
| 2021 | Gupta [46] | 140 | Neonates and Infants Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC-Miller, McGrath Mac | A: CMAC-Miller B: Equal C: Equal D: - | CMAC-Miller | Non-channelled, Miller |
| 2021 | Mani [47] | 116 | Surgical with Manual In-line Stabilisation | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC-D, AT | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: CMAC-D | CMAC-D | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2021 | Sepmiko [48] | 270 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: O-Mac, McGrath Mac | A: Equal B: O-Mac C: O-Mac D: O-Mac | O-Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2021 | Sultana [49] | 120 | Surgical in Lateral Position | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, AT | A: Equal B: CMAC C: Equal D: Equal | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2021 | Teo [50] | 65 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, GS | A: Equal B: CMAC > GS C: Equal D: Equal | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Gupta [51] | 60 | Surgical | Anaesthetists (COVID PPE) | 2: CMAC, McGrath Mac | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | CMAC = McGrath Mac | CMAC = Non-channelled, Macintosh McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Haldar [52] | 375 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: CMAC, ST | A: - B: CMAC > ST C: Equal D: Equal E: CMAC > ST Lifting force | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Jayadi [53] | 63 | Surgical | Anaesthetic residents | 2: CMAC, Wycope | A: - B: Equal C: - D: Equal | CMAC = Wycope | CMAC = Non-channelled, Macintosh Wycope = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2022 | Karadag [54] | 100 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath (acute), CMAC | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath = CMAC | CMAC = Non-channelled, Macintosh McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2022 | Kumar [55] | 140 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac, KV-C | A: Equal B: McGrath Mac > KV C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Suryatheja [56] | 160 | Surgical | Anaesthetic Residents | 2: CMAC Miller blade size 1, CMAC Macintosh Blade size 2 | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: CMAC Mac > CMAC Mil | CMAC Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Zhang [57] | 210 | Surgical | Anaesthetists | 2: McGrath Mac-X, CMAC | A: McGrath Mac-X > CMAC B: CMAC > McGrath Mac-X C: Equal D: Equal | McGrath Mac-X = CMAC | McGrath Mac-X = Non-Channelled, Acute-angled CMAC = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
APA = Venner AP advance; AT = Airtraq; AT-DL = Airtraq double lumen; AWS = Pentax Airway Scope; CMAC = CMAC; CMAC-D = CMAC D blade; CMAC Miller = CMAC Miller blade; CMAC-PM = CMAC pocket monitor; Dahlhausen = Dahlhausen; DCI = Storz-DCI; GS = GlideScope; GS-AVL = GlideScope Advanced Video Laryngoscope; GS Cobalt = GlideScope Cobalt; Imago-V-C = Imago channelled V blade; IB = Intubrite; KV = King Vision; KV-C = King Vision channelled; KV-NC = King Vision non-channelled; KV-aBlade-C = King Vision aBlade channelled; KV-aBlade-NC = King Vision aBlade non-channelled; KV paeds aBlade = King Vision Paediatric aBlade; McGrath Mac = McGrath Mac; McGrath Mac (acute) = McGrath Mac acute-angled blade; McGrath Series 5 (acute) = McGrath Series 5 acute-angled blade; McGrath Mac-X = McGrath Mac X-blade; O-Mac = O-Mac; ST = Smart Trach; TV-PCD = Truview PCD; TV = Truview; TV EVO2 = Truview EVO2; Wycope = Wycope.
Table 3.
Outcomes of comparative studies in simulation studies using different types of videolaryngoscopes.
Table 3.
Outcomes of comparative studies in simulation studies using different types of videolaryngoscopes.
| Year | First Author | No. of Providers | Simulation Setting | Intubator | Number and Types of Videolaryngoscopes Used | Outcomes Based On: A: Improved Glottis View B: Faster Time to Successful Intubation C: Higher First Attempt Intubation Success D: Less Use of Manoeuvres or Adjuncts E: Other | Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscope | Blade of Most-Preferred VL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Altun [58] | 41 | Difficult Manikin | Anaesthetic Residents | 2: McGrath Mac (acute), CMAC | A: CMAC B: CMAC C: CMAC D: CMAC | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2016 | Arslan [59] | 36 | Difficult Paediatric Manikin | Medical Students | 2: GS, AT | A: - B: - C: GS D: GS | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2016 | El-Tahan [60] | 21 | Double Lumen Tube Manikin | Anaesthetists | 3: GS, AT, KV-NC | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: GS > KV-NC E: GS Preferred over AT and KV-NC | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2016 | Hippard [61] | 30 | Paediatric Manikin | Anaesthetists | 2: TV-PCD, GS-Cobalt | A: - B: Equal C: Equal D: - | TV-PCD = GS-Cobalt | TV-PCD = Non-channelled, Acute-angled GS-Cobalt = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2016 | Kim [62] | 35 | Manikin | Physicians | 3: AWS, GS | A: GS B: Equal C: GS D: - | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2016 | Kim [63] | 21 | Manikin | Physicians | 2: AWS, GS | A: Equal B: AWS C: Equal D: - | AWS | Channelled |
| 2016 | Nakanishi [64] | 35 | Manikin | Physicians | 2: AWS, CMAC | A: Equal B: AWS C: Equal D: - E: Higher Force on Incisors with CMAC than AWS | AWS | Channelled |
| 2016 | Schröder [65] | 42 | Manikin wearing chemical protective gear | Anaesthetists | 3: AT, GS, AP Advance | A: AP Advance > AT and GS B: AP Advance > AT and GS C: - D: - E: Preferred AP Advance > GS > AT | AP Advance | Channelled |
| 2016 | Shin [66] | 39 | Manikin | Novice Medical Students | 2: McGrath Mac, CMAC | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal E: Preferred McGrath Mac | McGrath Mac | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2017 | Hodnick [67] | 5 | Cadaver | Paramedics | 2: GS, VT | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | GS = VT | GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled VT = Channelled |
| 2017 | Lee [68] | 18 | Manikin with Normal and Difficult Airway | Paramedics | 4: GS, AWS, KV-NC, KV-C | A: Equal B: AWS C: Equal D: - E: Preferred AWS | AWS | Channelled |
| 2017 | Owada [69] | 20 | Paediatric Manikin with Difficult Airway | Anaesthetists | 2: AT, McGrath Mac | A: AT B: Equal C: AT D: - E: AT Preferred and less dental trauma | AT | Channelled |
| 2018 | Kriege [70] | 80 | Infant Manikin Normal and Difficult Airway | Anaesthetic Staff and Paediatric Critical Care Medicine Staff | 2: KV-Paeds aBlade, CMAC-D | A: KV-Paeds aBlade B: KV-Paeds aBlade C: KV-Paeds aBlade D: - | KV-Paeds aBlade | Non-Channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2018 | Oshika [71] | 21 | Prone Manikin | Anaesthetists | 2: AWS, McGrath Mac | A: - B: AWS C: AWS D: - | AWS | Channelled |
| 2019 | Chew [72] | 105 | Difficult Airway Manikin | Junior Doctors | 3: KV-aBlade-C, KV-aBlade-NC, Mcgrath Mac | A: - B: KV-aBlade-C + McGrath Mac > KV-aBlade-NC C: KV-aBlade-C + McGrath Mac > KV-aBlade-NC D: - | KV-aBlade-C + McGrath Mac | KV-aBlade-C = Channelled McGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2019 | Desai [73] | 26 | Paediatric Pierre Robin Sequence Manikin | Paediatric Intensive Care Physicians | 2: AT, GS | A: Equal B: AT C: AT D: - | AT | Channelled |
| 2019 | Raimann [74] | 42 | Trapped Car Crash Manikin | Anaesthetic Staff and Emergency Physicians | 4: CMAC-D, TV-PCD, CMAC, CMAC-PM | A: CMAC-D > TV-PCD B: CMAC > TV-PCD + CMAC-D, CMAC-PM > TV-PCD C: CMAC + CMAC-PM > TV-PCD D: - E: CMAC Preferred | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2020 | Gaszyński [75] | 11 | Prone and Sitting Manikin | Anaesthetists | 2: AWS, IB | A: Equal B: AWS C: Equal D: - E: Lower pressure with AWS | AWS | Channelled |
| 2020 | Moritz [76] | 112 | Difficult Airway Manikin | Anaesthetist and Paramedics | 4: I-View, KV-NC, GS, Dahlhausen | A: KV-NC, GS, Dahlhausen > I-View B: KV-NC, GS, Dahlhausen > I-View C: KV-NC, GS, Dahlhausen > I-View D: - E: Preferred GS | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Romito [77] | 8 | Cadaver with Cervical Spine Instability | Anaesthetists | 3: CMAC-D, GS, McGrath Mac-X | A: Equal B: - C: Equal D: - | CMAC-D = GS = McGrath Mac-X | CMAC-D = Non-channelled, Acute-angled GS = Non-channelled, Acute-angled McGrath Mac-X = Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2020 | Votruba [78] | 58 | Manikin with Cervical Spine Immbolisation | Anaesthetists | 2: KV-C, KV-NC | A: Equal B: KV-C C: KV-C D:- E: Easier with KV-C | KV-C | Channelled |
| 2020 | Yi [79] | 35 | Manikin with Normal Neck and with Cervical Spine Instability | Anaesthetic Nurses | 2: McGrath Mac, AWS | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: - | McGrath Mac = AWS | MGrath Mac = Non-channelled, Macintosh AWS = Channelled |
| 2021 | Ataman [80] | 23 | Manikin with Normal and Difficult Airway | Emergency Physicians and Emergency Residents | 2: GS, AirAngel 3D-Printed | A: - B: GS C: GS D: - | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2021 | Decamps [81] | 79 | Critical Illness Manikin | Residents | 4: KV-C, AWS, AT, VT | A: KV-C + AWS > VT B: AWS > VT C: Equal D: Equal E: Ease of use with KV-C + AWS + AT > VT | AWS | Channelled |
| 2021 | Gupta [82] | 50 | COVID Simulation Manikin | Anaesthetist and Non-Anaesthetic Physicians | 2: KV-C, Tuoren | A: KV-C B: KV-C C: KV-C D: KV-C E: Easier and less complications with KV-C | KV-C | Channelled |
| 2021 | Moritz [83] | 86 | Paediatric Pierre Robin Sequence Manikin | Anaesthetists | 2: GS-Core, CMAC-Miller | A: GS B: CMAC-Miller C: Equal D: CMAC-Miller E: CMAC-Miller preferred by both anaesthetist with experience and with limited experience | CMAC-Miller | Non-channelled, Miller |
| 2021 | Taylor [84] | 33 | Manikin | Military emergency providers | 2: I-view, GS | A: GS > I-view B: GS > I-view C: Equal D: - | GS | Non-channelled, Acute-angled |
| 2021 | Vig [85] | 30 | Manikin | Medical Professionals (no intubation experience) | 2: McGrath Mac, CMAC | A: CMAC > McGrath B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Gupta [86] | 100 | Manikin | Medical Students | 2: KV-C, KV-NC | A: Equal B: KV-C > KVNC C: KV-C > KVNC D:- E: KV-C > KVNC ease of intubation | KV-C | Channelled |
| 2022 | Er [87] | 50 | Manikin | Paediatric Residents | 2: McGrath Mac, CMAC PM | A: CMAC PM > McGrath Mac B: CMAC PM > McGrath Mac C: CMAC PM > McGrath D:- | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
| 2022 | Kumar [88] | 61 | Manikin | Healthcare Staff with COVID PPE | 2: CMAC, KV-C | A: Equal B: Equal C: Equal D: Equal E: CMAC > KV-C—easier insertion of laryngoscope blade | CMAC | Non-channelled, Macintosh |
AirAngel 3D-printed = AirAngel blade 3D-printed; APA = Venner AP advance; AWS = Pentax Airway Scope; AT = Airtraq; CMAC = CMAC; CMAC-D = CMAC D blade; CMAC Miller = CMAC Miller blade; CMAC-PM = CMAC pocket monitor; GS = GlideScope; GS Cobalt = GlideScope Cobalt; GS-Core = GlideScope Core; I-view = I-view; KV-aBlade-C = King Vision aBlade channelled; KV-aBlade-NC = King Vision aBlade non-channelled; KV-C = King Vision channelled; KV-NC = King Vision non-channelled; KV paeds aBlade = King Vision Paediatric aBlade; McGrath Mac = McGrath Mac; McGrath Mac (acute) = McGrath Mac acute-angled blade; Tuoren = TUORen; TV-PCD = Truview PCD; VT = VividTrac VT-A100.
Table 4.
Outcomes of videolaryngoscopy studies listed by most-preferred VLs.
| Surgical | Simulation | Total | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLS | Surgical Studies | Favoured Studies | % of Studies Favoured | Total Number of Patients in Studies | Simulation Studies | Favoured Studies | % of Studies Favoured | Total Number of Participants in Studies | Total Studies | Favoured | % Favoured |
| CMAC | 25 | 19 | 76% | 2894 | 12 | 7 | 58% | 472 | 37 | 26 | 70% |
| McGrath | 19 | 12 | 63% | 2304 | 9 | 4 | 44% | 349 | 28 | 16 | 57% |
| GS | 13 | 9 | 69% | 1240 | 14 | 9 | 64% | 496 | 27 | 18 | 67% |
| KV-NC | 6 | 5 | 83% | 1074 | 7 | 1 | 14% | 494 | 13 | 6 | 46% |
| AWS | 8 | 4 | 50% | 1001 | 8 | 7 | 88% | 255 | 16 | 11 | 69% |
| AT | 11 | 6 | 54% | 1397 | 6 | 2 | 33% | 224 | 17 | 8 | 47% |
| KV-C | 12 | 2 | 17% | 1756 | 7 | 4 | 57% | 471 | 19 | 6 | 32% |
CMAC = CMAC; CMAC D-blade; CMAC Miller blade; CMAC Pocket Monitor; McGrath = McGrath Mac; McGrath Series 5; McGrath Mac X-blade; GS = GlideScope; GlideScope Cobalt; GlideScope Advanced Video Laryngoscope; KV-NC = King Vision non-channelled; King Vision aBlade non-channelled; King Vision Paediatric aBlade; AWS = Pentax Airway Scope; AT = Airtraq; Airtraq double lumen; KV-C = King Vision channelled; King Vision aBlade channelled.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Nedunchezhian, V.; Nedunchezhian, I.; Van Zundert, A. Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11172383
AMA Style
Nedunchezhian V, Nedunchezhian I, Van Zundert A. Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review. Healthcare. 2023; 11(17):2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11172383
Chicago/Turabian StyleNedunchezhian, Vikram, Ishvar Nedunchezhian, and André Van Zundert. 2023. "Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review" Healthcare 11, no. 17: 2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11172383
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
