Journal of Research & Innovation in Anesthesia

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison between Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscope in Endotracheal Intubation for Elective Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Study

Shalaka R Sonavane, Sunil K Gvalanil, Pratika P Bhokare

Keywords : Intubation, King Vision, Macintosh, Pressor response, Prospective randomized study

Citation Information : Sonavane SR, Gvalanil SK, Bhokare PP. Comparison between Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscope in Endotracheal Intubation for Elective Surgeries: A Prospective Randomized Study. Res Inno in Anesth 2020; 5 (2):28-32.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10049-0090

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 04-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is an essential anesthesia skill. Despite improvements in intubation devices, tracheal intubation is still accomplished using the traditional method of direct laryngoscopy.1 The failure of direct laryngoscopy to provide an adequate glottic visualization, coupled with a major pressor response, has led to the development of newer intubation devices. Video laryngoscope is one such intubation device with advantages of a higher success rate, better glottic visualization, safer intubation, faster learning curve, and the opportunity for dynamic interaction during airway management.3 In our study, we have used King Vision Video Laryngoscope (KVVL) for tracheal intubation and compared its efficacy, ease, safety, and shorter learning curve with that of the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscope. The laryngoscopic view, hemodynamic response, and the attempts and time of endotracheal intubation of both Macintosh and KVVL have been compared in this prospective randomized study. Materials and methods: A total of 200 patients were assigned into two groups, I and II, where group I consists of patients receiving general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation using conventional Macintosh blade; and group II consists of patients receiving general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation using KVVL. Preoperative anesthesia check-ups and airway assessments were done which included mouth opening, MPC grading, and measurement of thyromental distance. The parameters studied were laryngoscopy view (using modified Cormack–Lehane scoring system), assessment of laryngoscopy and intubation procedure (number of attempts for successful intubation, maneuvers used during laryngoscopy, endotracheal tube insertion time), and hemodynamic response (heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and SpO2). Results: The hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation was significantly lower with KVVL. Also, KVVL had superior glottic vision and less maneuver requirement during laryngoscopy. Conclusion: From our study of comparison between Macintosh and KVVL, we conclude that KVVL is more effective in reducing hemodynamic response to intubation and requires less optimization maneuvers. Clinical significance: This study aims at providing evidence to guide the anesthesiologists regarding the merits and demerits of video laryngoscopes and aid them in safer airway management techniques without complications.


PDF Share
  1. Levitan RM, Heitz JW, Sweeney M, et al. The complexities of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy and alternative intubation devices. Ann Emerg Med 2011;57(3):240–247. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.035.
  2. Lee LC. Two curves theory does not clearly explain laryngoscopy and intubation. Br J Anaesth 2011;106(6):909–910. author reply 910-1 10.1093/bja/aer137.
  3. Dorsch JA, Dorsch SE. Understanding Anesthesia Equipment. 5th ed., 2012.
  4. Paolini JB, Donati F, Drolet P. Review article: video-laryngoscopy: another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management? Can J Anaesth 2013;60(2):184–191. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-012-9859-5.
  5. Unzueta MC, Ignacio Casas J, Merten A. Macintosh's laryngoscope. Anesthesiology 2005;102(1):242. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200501000-00046.
  6. Chemsian R, Bhananker S, Ramaiah R. Videolaryngoscopy. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2014;4(1):35–41. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.12801.
  7. Garhwal AM, Bhure AR, Bhargava SR, et al. A clinical assessment of Macintosh blade, Miller blade and King Vision TM Videolaryngoscope for laryngeal aexposure and difficulty in endotracheal exposure. J Evidence Based Med Healthcare 2016;3(31):1380.
  8. Murphy LD, Kovacs GJ, Reardon PM, et al. Comparison of the king vision video laryngoscope with the macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med 2014;47(2):239–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.02.008.
  9. Elhadi SM, Rady WK, Elfadly AM. A comparative study between the macintosh laryngoscope and the king vision video laryngoscope in endotracheal intubation. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care 2016;3(4):168–172. DOI: 10.4103/2356-9115.195881.
  10. Mogahed MM, Elghamri MR, Anwar AG. Comparative study of intubation performance between macintosh, the channeled king vision and the C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope in controlled hypertensive patients. J Anesth Clin Res 2017;8(11):780. DOI: 10.4172/2155-6148.1000780.
  11. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, et al. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11(11):CD011136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub2.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.