视频喉镜在垂体瘤患者气管插管中的应用

目的探讨视频喉镜在垂体瘤患者气管插管中的应用。方法选择择期行全麻垂体瘤手术患者51例,男19例,女32例,年龄18~71岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。随机将患者分为Macintosh喉镜组(M组,n=25)和视频喉镜组(VL组,n=26)。M组患者气管插管时使用Macintosh喉镜暴露声门,VL组患者使用电子视频喉镜暴露声门。测量患者颈部后仰度、张口度、甲颏距、颈围、下颌支长度、改良Mallampati分级及面罩通气难易程度。记录暴露声门时按压环状软骨的比例、Cormack-Lehane分级、二次插管的比例和插管时间。结果VL组按压环状软骨的比例(7.7%vs48.0%)及Cormack-Lehane分级明显低于M组(P0.01),插管时间明显短于M组[(32.4±11.7)s vs(45.8±12.6)s](P0.01)。结论视频喉镜用于垂体瘤患者气管插管,可显著改善声门暴露,提高插管成功率并缩短插管时间。     

强直性脊柱炎患者TmviewTM EVO2喉镜引导气管插管的效果

气管插管时常采用Macintosh喉镜.困难气道患者声门显露困难,采用Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管易造成插管困难.TruviewTM EVO2喉镜(Treview喉镜)是一种新型的光学间接式插管喉镜,可提高对声门结构的显露,提高气管插管成功率[1-3].本研究拟通过与Macintosh喉镜进行比较,评价强直性脊柱炎患者Truview喉镜引导气管插管的效果.     

Discoscope内窥镜与GlideScope可视喉镜用于声门显露困难患者气管插管效果的比较

目的 比较Discoscope内窥镜与GlideScope可视喉镜用于声门显露困难患者气管插管的效果.方法 择期行经口气管插管的全麻患者40例,Macintosh喉镜显露Cormach-Lehane分级Ⅲ或Ⅳ级,性别不限,年龄24 ～ 78岁,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为2组(n=20):GlideScope可视喉镜组(G组)和Discoscope内窥镜组(D组).记录声门显露情况、声门显露时间、气管插管情况、声门显露后至气管导管置入时间和气管插管时间.术后随访患者,记录咽喉出血和咽喉疼痛的发生情况.结果 与G组比较,D组声门显露时间延长,环状软骨按压率降低,声门显露至气管导管置入时间缩短,1次气管插管成功率升高(P＜0.05),1次声门显露成功率、2次声门显露成功率、2次气管插管成功率、气管插管时间、咽喉出血发生率和咽喉疼痛发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 与GlideScope可视喉镜比较,Discoscope内窥镜用于声门显露困难患者有助于声门的显露,且可提高气管插管的成功机率.     

TruviewEV02喉镜与Macintosh喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管的对比研究

目的评价Truview EVO,喉镜与Macintosh喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管的临床应用情况。方法择期颈椎活动受限经口气管插管全麻手术49例,静脉麻醉诱导后,随机先后使用TruviewEVO2喉镜与Macintosh喉镜显露喉部,并采用喉部暴露条件好的喉镜行气管插管。比较2种喉镜Cormack．Lehane（C-L）分级,喉部结构显露时间和声门显露时血流动力学改变。结果TruviewEVO,喉镜组c-L分级显著优于Macintosh喉镜组（Z=-5．488,P=0．000）,喉部结构显露时间明显长于Macintosh喉镜组[（15．9±6．7）Svs．（12．3±4．5）S,t=4．304,P=0．000]。2种喉镜声门显露时HR、SBP、MAP变化无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论TruviewEVO,喉镜用于颈椎活动受限患者气管插管效果明显优于Macintosh喉镜,可提高气管插管成功率,对于部分困难气道患者具有较好的应用价值。     

可视喉罩与可视喉镜用于困难气管插管的比较

目的 比较可视喉罩和可视喉镜用于困难气管插管患者的效果。

方法 选择气管插管全麻手术患者90例,男27例,女63例,年龄18～64岁,BMI<30 kg/m²,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,根据术前简化气道风险指数（SARI）筛选困难气管插管患者（SARI评分≥3分）。采用随机数字表法将患者分为两组：可视喉罩组（S组）和可视喉镜组（C组）,每组45例。S组使用可视喉罩引导气管插管,C组使用可视喉镜完成气管插管。记录声门暴露分级、声门暴露时间、气管插管时间、总插管时间、插管成功例数,插管前、插管即刻、插管后3 min和拔管前、拔管即刻、拔管后3 min的HR和MAP、术后插管并发症（声音嘶哑、咽喉痛）的发生情况。

结果 与C组比较,S组声门暴露时间［Ｓ组（18.2±7.6）s vs C组（14.1±2.8）s］明显延长（P＜0.05）,S组插管即刻和拔管即刻HR明显减慢,MAP明显降低（P＜0.05）。两组声门暴露分级、气管插管时间、总插管时间、插管成功率和术后插管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。

结论 在困难气管插管的患者中,使用可视喉罩与可视喉镜均能快速有效地完成气管插管,与可视喉镜比较,使用可视喉罩声门暴露时间延长,插管与拔管即刻血流动力学波动幅度较小。     

HC视频喉镜与Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管效果的比较

目的 比较HC视频喉镜与Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管的效果.方法 择期全麻患者60例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,性别不限,年龄18 ～ 64岁,体重指数19 ～ 27 kg/m2,Mallampati分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法,将其随机分为2组(n=30):HC视频喉镜组(H组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组).麻醉诱导后分别用HC视频喉镜和Macintosh喉镜引导经口气管插管.记录两组患者声门暴露时间、气管插管时间、Cormack-Lehane分级(用于计算声门暴露满意率)、环状软骨按压情况,观察气管插管并发症的发生情况.结果 与M组比较,H组声门暴露满意率升高,环状软骨按压次数降低(P＜0.05).两组患者声门暴露时间、气管插管时间和气管插管并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 HC视频喉镜引导气管插管的效果优于Macintosh喉镜.     

GlideScope喉镜与Macintosh喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术效果的比较

目的 比较GlideScope喉镜与Macintosh喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术的效果.方法 选择胸科手术单肺通气的患者70例,ASA分级Ⅰ～Ⅲ级,年龄18 ～ 75岁,性别不限.采用随机数字表法,将患者分为2组(n=35)∶GlideScope喉镜组(G组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组).麻醉诱导后,按照Cormack-Lehane分级评估Macintosh喉镜暴露声门程度.采用Macintosh喉镜(M组)和GlideScope喉镜(G组)辅助双腔气管导管插管术.记录Macintosh喉镜和GlideScope喉镜下Cormack-Lehane分级以及置入双腔气管导管的难易程度和双腔气管导管反向置管的发生情况;记录气管插管成功情况和气管插管时间.于气管插管前、气管插管后即刻和气管插管后3 min记录血压及心率.记录术后相关不良反应的发生情况.结果 与M组比较,G组气管插管时间延长,双腔气管导管置管困难程度升高,气管插管后即刻和气管插管后3 min血压升高(P＜0.05),首次气管插管成功率、双腔气管导管反向置管率、Comark-Lehene分级和各时点心率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);G组GlideScope喉镜下Cormack-Lehane分级优于Macintosh喉镜(P＜0.05).结论 与Macintosh喉镜相比,GlideScope喉镜辅助双腔气管导管插管术时能更好地暴露声门,改善气管插管条件,但方法较复杂,且插管反应较强.     

可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜在声门显露困难患者双腔支气管插管中的应用

目的探讨GlideScope可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导在声门显露困难患者双腔支气管插管中的应用。方法选择择期行胸科手术患者40例,男24例,女16例,年龄24~78岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,MallampatiⅢ或Ⅳ级,随机分为GlideScope可视喉镜组(GF组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组),每组20例。GF组运用可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导进行支气管插管及对位;M组运用传统方法(先用Macintosh喉镜插管,再使用纤维支气管镜对位)。记录患者喉镜下声门显露程度Cormack-Lehane分级、插管时间、插管一次成功率、需喉部按压的患者例数以及术后48h内的声音嘶哑及咽痛情况。结果GF组Cormack-Lehane分级明显低于M组(P0.01)。GF组插管时间明显短于M组[(104.3±11.1)s vs.(138.6±33.0)s](P0.01),一次插管成功率明显高于M组(90%vs.55%)(P0.05),需要喉部按压患者比例明显低于M组(20%vs.90%)(P0.01),术后声音嘶哑和咽痛的发生率明显低于M组(5%vs.35%,25%vs.75%)(P0.05)。结论与传统方法比较,可视喉镜联合纤维支气管镜引导用于声门显露困难患者可以提高插管的成功率,减少插管时的应激反应,降低声嘶和咽痛的发生率。     

Tosight视频喉镜在Klippel-Feil综合征患儿气管插管中的应用

目的探讨Tosight视频喉镜在Klippel-Feil综合征(KFS)患儿气管插管中的应用效果。方法 20例KFS患儿,年龄4~12岁,ASAⅡ或Ⅲ级,随机均分为两组:Tosight可视喉镜组(T组)和Macintosh喉镜组(M组)。记录喉镜下喉部显露分级(Cormack-Lehane分级)、气管插管时间、气管插管次数、插管成功率和并发症发生情况。结果 T组全部完成气管插管,M组完成6例气管插管。T组气管插管时间明显短于、插管次数明显少于M组(P0.05)。两组患儿均无严重并发症发生。结论 Tosight视频喉镜用于KFS患儿气管插管操作简单,声门暴露清晰,插管成功率高,插管时间短,优于Macintosh喉镜。     

颌面外科手术患者视可尼喉镜引导经鼻气管插管的效果

目的 评价颌面外科手术患者视可尼喉镜引导经鼻气管插管的效果.方法 需行经鼻气管插管的颌面外科手术患者100例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄18～64岁,体重指数＜25 kg/m2.50例术前气道评估基本正常的患者随机分为2组(n=25):Macintosh喉镜引导气管插管组(M组)和视可尼喉镜引导气管插管组(S1组).50例张口度≤3 cm,但无面罩通气困难的患者,随机分为2组(n=25):光导纤维支气管镜引导气管插管组(F组)和视可尼喉镜引导气管插管组(S2组).麻醉诱导后分别置入喉镜引导气管插管,行机械通气.评价喉部显露程度和气管插管过程中鼻出血程度,记录气管插管成功情况、气管插管时间和术后鼻部并发症发生情况.结果 与M组比较,S1组气管插管成功率、一次气管插管成功率和喉部显露程度升高,气管插管时间缩短,鼻出血程度降低(P＜0.05),鼻部疼痛、持续出血和鼻塞的发生率差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).与F组比较,S2组气管插管时间缩短(P＜0.05),气管插管成功率、一次气管插管成功率、喉部显露程度、鼻出血程度和鼻部疼痛、持续出血和鼻塞的发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 视可尼喉镜可更好地显露喉部结构,一次气管插管成功率高,更适用于颌面外科手术患者引导经鼻气管插管.     

Pentax-AWS, a new videolaryngoscope, is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with restricted neck movements: a randomized comparative study

BACKGROUND: We studied whether laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were easier when using the Pentax-AWS (Tokyo, Japan), a new videolaryngoscope, than when applying the Macintosh laryngoscope, during manual in-line neck stabilization. METHODS: In 203 anaesthetized patients with manual in-line neck stabilization, we inserted the Pentax-AWS and a Macintosh laryngoscope, in turn, and recorded the view of the glottis and time taken to laryngoscopy. The success rate of tracheal intubation (within 120 s) and time to intubation were also recorded. RESULTS: The view of the glottis was significantly better with the Pentax-AWS than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (P<0.001). For the Macintosh laryngoscope, the view was obscured in 22 of 203 patients (11%) (Grade 3 in 21 patients and Grade 4 in one patient), whereas for the Pentax-AWS, the glottis was always clearly seen (Grade 1). Time taken to see the glottis with the Pentax-AWS [mean (sd): 6.0 (3.1) s] was significantly shorter than with the Macintosh laryngoscope [11.0 (5.0) s] (95% CI for difference: 4-6 s). The success rate of tracheal intubation with the Pentax-AWS (all of 99 patients) was significantly higher than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (93 of 104 patients) (P=0.001). Time taken for intubation was similar between the Macintosh laryngoscope [51 (27) s] and the Pentax-AWS [54 (14) s] (95% CI for difference: -9 to 3 s). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stabilized neck, the Pentax-AWS provided a better view of the glottis and a higher success rate of tracheal intubation, compared with the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope.     

Validation of the glidescope video laryngoscope in pediatric patients

Background:  GlideScope laryngoscopy provides a glottic view equal or superior compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Data evaluating GlideScope laryngoscopy in pediatric patients are lacking. This study compared intubation times of GlideScope laryngoscopy vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in pediatric patients.
Methods:  Sixty ASA I–III patients, aged 10 years or less, were included in this study. Prior to intubation, airway characteristics were measured, and all patients were given an airway class by a separate anesthesiologist using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Patients were then randomly assigned for endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or the GlideScope, and intubation time was measured. All blades were investigated for blood traces as a surrogate of laryngeal injury.
Results:  Demographic data and airway characteristics were not statistically significant different between groups. GlideScope intubation time (14 ± 5 s) was not different from Macintosh intubation time (13 ± 5 s). Blood traces were not observed on Macintosh or GlideScope blades.
Conclusion:  The GlideScope video laryngoscope is equally suitable to facilitate orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to intubation time and laryngeal trauma.     

Easy and difficult nasal intubation--a randomised comparison of Macintosh vs Airtraq® laryngoscopes

A new Airtraq^® laryngoscope has been developed for nasal intubation. We prospectively compared tracheal intubation efficiency of the Airtraq for nasotracheal intubation vs that of the Macintosh laryngoscope in 200 patients. Depending on pre‐operative airway evaluation, the patients were allocated to expected easy (n = 100) or difficult (n = 100) intubation groups, on the basis of mouth opening ≤ 2.5 cm, modified Mallampati score of 4, history of difficult intubation, obvious tumour or swelling. Patients were randomly allocated to the Macintosh or nasotracheal Airtraq technique. All easy intubations were successfully performed with the respective technique. In the expected difficult intubation group, the success rate was higher (47/50 vs 33/50; p < 0.01), the glottis view was better (Cormack and Lehane 1/2/3/4 grades: 29/17/1/3 vs 5/11/18/16, p < 0.01), mean (SD) intubation time was shorter (45(46) s vs 77(47)s, p < 0.01) and the number of optimising manoeuvres was reduced with the nasotracheal Airtraq compared with the Macintosh, respectively. For difficult nasal intubations, the nasotracheal Airtraq is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope.     

Airtraq DL喉镜用于双腔气管导管插管的临床效果

目的 评价Airtraq DL喉镜用于双腔气管导管插管的临床效果.方法 选择拟行胸科手术单肺通气的患者30例.术前评估患者的气道情况.患者入室后常规麻醉诱导,插管前分别使用直接喉镜和Airtraq DL喉镜,按Cormack-Lehane分级评估声门暴露情况.记录使用AirtraqDL喉镜的插管次数、插管时间等.结果 与直接喉镜比较,Airtraq DL喉镜可以明显提高声门暴露程度(P＜0.01),有27例患者一次插管成功,平均插管时间为41(12～225)s.结论 Airtraq DL喉镜能够改善声门暴露程度并有效地用于双腔气管导管插管,因此可以作为双腔气管插管的新选择.     

Efficacy of Coopdech videolaryngoscope: comparisons with a Macintosh laryngoscope and the Airway Scope in a manikin with difficult airways

We studied the efficacy of the Coopdech videolaryngoscope Portable VLP-100, by comparing it with a Macintosh laryngoscope, and another videolaryngoscope, the Airway Scope (AWS), in a manikin with four simulated difficult airways. In a randomized, crossover design, each of 50 residents inserted the three devices, in turn, and graded the view of the glottis at laryngoscopy. Time to see the glottis, time to intubate the trachea, and the success rate of tracheal intubation (within 120 s) were recorded. In all situations, the AWS provided a significantly shorter time to see the glottis. In a manikin with tongue edema, the AWS was associated with a significantly higher success rate of intubation than the VLP-100 and the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05). In a manikin with cervical spine rigidity or pharyngeal obstruction, the AWS and the VLP-100 provided significantly higher success rates of intubation than the Macintosh laryngoscope (P < 0.05). In a manikin with laryngospasm, no one could intubate the trachea using any device. Our results indicate that, in patients with difficult airways, the videolaryngoscopes (VLP-100 and AWS) would provide higher success rates of tracheal intubation than the Macintosh laryngoscope, but the VLP-100 may be inferior to the AWS.     

Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes

BACKGROUND: The Airtraq laryngoscope is designed to allow visualization of the glottis without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axes. We hypothesized that this new airway device would facilitate tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients. We compared tracheal intubation performance of standard Macintosh laryngoscope with the Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. METHODS: One hundred and six consecutive ASA I-III morbidly obese patients undergoing surgery were randomized to intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope or the Airtraq laryngoscope. Induction of anaesthesia was standardized. If tracheal intubation failed within 120 s with the Macintosh or Airtraq , laryngoscopes were switched. Success rate, SpO2, duration of tracheal intubation, and quality of airway management were evaluated and compared between the groups. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. In the Airtraq group, tracheal intubation was successfully carried out in all patients within 120 s. In the Macintosh laryngoscope group, six patients required intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope. The mean (SD) time taken for tracheal intubation was 24 (16) and 56 (23) s, respectively, with the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes, (P<0.001). SpO2 was better maintained in the Airtraq group than in the Macintosh laryngoscope group with one and nine patients, respectively, demonstrating drops of SpO2 to 92% or less (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Airtraq laryngoscope shortened the duration of tracheal intubation and prevented reductions in arterial oxygen saturation in morbidly obese patients.     

A clinical assessment of the Glidescope videolaryngoscope in nasotracheal intubation with general anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Glidescope videolaryngoscope as a device to aid nasotracheal intubation, and to determine whether the GSVL provides a better laryngeal view in patients with difficult laryngoscopy compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. DESIGN: Prospective, clinical study. SETTING: Two university hospitals. PATIENTS: 156 healthy adult ASA physical status I and II undergoing elective plastic and intraoral surgery with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: After anesthesia induction with intravenous injection of fentanyl 2 microg/kg, propofol 2 mg/kg, and vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg, nasotracheal intubation was performed using GSVL. MEASUREMENTS: Preoperative airway measurements were taken to predict potential difficult airways. During nasotracheal intubation using GSVL, laryngeal views, times required for full visualization of glottis and successful intubation, difficulty encountered and auxiliary maneuvers adopted, and upper airway trauma were recorded. The laryngeal views obtained by GSVL and by Macintosh laryngoscope were compared. MAIN RESULTS: The laryngeal views obtained by GSVL in all patients were Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grades I and II, and the success rate of intubation using GSVL at one attempt was 98.1%. The times required for visualization of the glottis and successful intubation were 40.2 +/- 11.5 s and 52.7 +/- 12.3 seconds, respectively. Patients with C&L grade II needed more auxiliary maneuvers to achieve successful intubation than did those with C&L grade I (P < 0.001). In 36 patients with potential difficult airways, the frequency of difficult laryngoscopy (C&L grades III and IV) with the Macintosh laryngoscope (58.3%) was significantly higher than with the GSVL (0%, P < 0.05). The frequency of minor upper airway trauma was 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The GSVL is an effective device for nasotracheal intubation and may be incorporated easily into routine clinical practice. Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GSVL can provide an improved laryngeal view in the patient with difficult airway.     

Nasotracheal intubation using the Airtraq versus Macintosh laryngoscope: a manikin study

The Airtraq laryngoscope is a new intubation device that provides a non-line-of-sight view of the glottis. We evaluated this device by comparing the ease of nasotracheal intubation on a manikin with the use of Airtraq versus the Macintosh laryngoscope with and without Magill forceps. Nasotracheal intubation on a manikin was performed by 20 anesthesiologists and 20 residents with the Airtraq or Macintosh laryngoscope. The mean (+/- SD) time required for nasotracheal intubation by the residents was significantly shorter with the Airtraq laryngoscope than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (16 +/- 7 sec vs 22 +/- 10 sec; P < .001), but no difference in intubation time was observed between Airtraq (15 +/- 11 sec) and Macintosh (13 +/- 6 sec) laryngoscopy by the anesthesiologists. The Magill forceps was used more frequently to facilitate intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the Airtraq laryngoscope in both groups of operators 7(P < .001). The Airtraq laryngoscope scored better on the visual analog scale than did the Macintosh laryngoscope in both groups of operators (P < .05). The Airtraq laryngoscope offers potential advantages over standard direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.     

An evaluation of the TruView EVO2 laryngoscope

The TruView EVO2 laryngoscope was compared with the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope in 200 patients who required tracheal intubation for elective surgery. Mallampati score determined prior to laryngoscopy was significantly related to the view of the glottis during laryngoscopy for both laryngoscopes. The view of the larynx was better with the TruView EVO2 laryngoscope than with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a Cormack and Lehane grade greater than 1 (p < 0.01). The mean time to intubate was significantly shorter with the Macintosh laryngoscope (34 s) than with the TruView laryngoscope (51 s) (p < 0.01).     

Clinical evaluation of C-MAC videolaryngoscope with or without use of stylet for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization

Purpose

This study was carried out to evaluate the relative efficacy of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope as compared to the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope using both styletted and non-styletted endotracheal tube (ETT) in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with head and neck stabilized by manual in-line stabilization.

Methods

We randomized 120 consenting adults into four groups (30 each) to undergo tracheal intubation using either the Macintosh laryngoscope or C-MAC videolaryngoscope with styletted and non-styletted ETT.

Results

There was no significant difference between the C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS) score using either styletted [median (IQR) 2 (1, 3) vs. 3 (2, 4); p = 0.58] or non-styletted ETT [median (IQR) 4 (2, 6) vs. 3 (2, 8); p = 1.00]. Similarly, when using a similar ETT-stylet assembly, the duration of successful intubation attempt, first attempt success rate, complications, use of airway optimization maneuvers, and adjuncts to facilitate intubation were comparable. The Cormack–Lehane view of the glottis was better with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope (p < 0.001). The use of stylet significantly reduced the IDS score [median (IQR) 2 (1, 3) vs. 4 (2, 6); p = 0.02], intubation time [median (IQR) 27 s (23, 31) vs. 52 s (28, 76); p < 0.001], and use of gum elastic bougie (3.3 % vs. 43.3 %, p < 0.001) with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope whereas no such effect was observed with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Conclusions

Use of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope resulted in similar levels of intubation difficulty during cervical immobilization when used with a similar ETT-stylet assembly. The inclusion of the stylet significantly reduced the intubation difficulty experienced with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope.