Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:41:52.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the GlideScope® video laryngoscope vs. the intubating laryngeal mask for females with normal airways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

W. L. L. Fun ,
Y. Lim  and
W. H. L. Teoh
W. L. L. Fun*
Affiliation:
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, Singapore
Y. Lim
Affiliation:
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, Singapore
W. H. L. Teoh
Affiliation:
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, Singapore
*
Correspondence to: Dr Fun Wendy Li Ling, Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, 100 Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 229899. E-mail: wen1044@yahoo.com; Tel: +65 63941081; Fax: +65 62912661
Get access

Summary

Background and objective

In this randomized clinical study, we compared the intubation success rates of the intubating laryngeal mask airway with the GlideScope® in patients with normal airways. The primary hypothesis was that the intubating laryngeal mask airway was equally effective as the GlideScope® in terms of successful intubation times.

Methods

Sixty ASA I and II adult patients undergoing elective gynaecological surgery were randomly allocated into either the intubating laryngeal mask airway group or the GlideScope® group. After a standard anaesthetic intravenous induction, orotracheal intubation was performed. Time taken for successful tracheal intubation, ease of device insertion, difficulty of tracheal intubation, manoeuvres needed to aid tracheal intubation, number of intubation attempts, haemodynamic changes every 2.5 min interval for 5 min and complications during tracheal intubation were recorded.

Results

Time to successful intubation was longer (mean 68.4 s ± 23.5 vs. 35.7 s ± 10.7; P < 0.05), mean difficulty score was higher (mean 16.7 ± 16.3 vs. 7.3 ± 13.1; P < 0.05) and more intubation attempts were required in the intubating laryngeal mask airway group.

Conclusion

The GlideScope® improved intubation time and difficulty score for tracheal intubation when compared with the intubating laryngeal mask airway in our patients. Blind intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask airway offers no advantages over the GlideScope® in patients with normal airways. Despite its limitations, the intubating laryngeal mask airway is a valuable adjunct, especially in cases of difficult airway management when it can provide ventilation in between intubation attempts.

Keywords

INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL, laryngeal mask GlideScope®ANAESTHESIA, GENERALSURGERY GYNAECOLOGICINTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS, oesophageal intubation
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , June 2007 , pp. 486 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Cooper, RM, Pacey, JA, Bishop, MJ, McCluskey, SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth 2005; 52: 191–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Cooper, RM. Use of a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in the management of a difficult airway. Can J Anaesth 2003; 50: 611–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. The Complete GlideScope, Verathon Inc. http://www.verathon.ca/products/ [accessed on 20th October 2006].Google Scholar
4.Langeron, O, Semjen, F, Bourgain, JL et al. . Comparison of the intubating laryngeal mask airway with the fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway management. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 968–972.Google Scholar
5.Brain, A. LMA – Fastrach™ Instruction Manual. The Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd., 1997.Google Scholar
6.Agro, F, Brimacombe, J, Carassiti, M et al. . The intubating laryngeal mask. Clinical appraisal of ventilation and blind tracheal intubation in 110 patients. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 1084–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Lim, Y, Yeo, SW. A comparison of the GlideScope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005; 33: 243–247.Google Scholar
8.Bilgin, H, Bozkurt, M. Tracheal intubation using the ILMA, C-Trach or McCoy laryngoscope in patients with simulated cervical spine injury. Anaes 2006; 61: 685–691.Google Scholar
9.Kihara, S, Watanabe, S, Taguchi, N et al. . Tracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope vs intubating laryngeal mask airway in adults with normal airways. Anaesth Intensive Care 2000; 28: 281–286.Google Scholar
10.Kapila, A, Addy, EV, Verghese, C, Brain, AI. The intubating laryngeal mask airway: an initial assessment of performance. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 710–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lim, SL, Tay, DH, Thomas, E. A comparison of three types of tracheal tube for use in laryngeal mask assisted blind orotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1994; 49: 255–257.Google Scholar
12.Kihara, S, Watanabe, S. The intubating laryngeal mask: its advantages and limitations. Masui 2001; 50: 604–612.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Brimacombe, J, Keller, C, Berry, A. Pharyngolaryngeal morbidity with the intubating laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 1231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Shung, J, Avidan, MS, Ing, R et al. . Awake intubation of the difficult airway with the intubating laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 645–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Caponas, G. Intubating laryngeal mask airway. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30: 551–569.Google Scholar
16.Keller, C, Brimacombe, J. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures and fiberoptic position with the intubating versus the standard laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1001–1006.Google Scholar
17.Brain, AIJ, Verghese, C, Addy, EV et al. . The intubating laryngeal mask. II: a preliminary clinical report of a new means of intubating the trachea. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 704–709.Google Scholar
18.Wakeling, HG, Bagwell, A. The intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA) in an emergency failed intubation. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 305–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Langenstein, H, Moller, F. Intubating laryngeal mask. Anaesthesiol Reanim 1998; 23: 41–42.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Benjamin, FJ, Boon, D, French, RA. An evaluation of the GlideScope, a new video laryngoscope for difficult airways: a manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 517–521.Google Scholar
21.Kihara, S, Yaguchi, Y, Watanabe, S et al. . Haemodynamic responses to the intubating laryngeal mask and timing of removal. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2000; 17: 744–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Xue, FS, Zhang, GH, Li, XY et al. . Comparison of haemodynamic responses to orotracheal intubation with GlideScope videolaryngoscope and fibreoptic bronchoscope. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 522–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Weiss, M, Schwarz, U, Dillier, C et al. . Use of the intubating laryngeal mask in children: an evaluation using video-endoscopic monitoring. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 739–744.Google Scholar
24.Asai, T, Shingu, K. Tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask in patients with unstable necks. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45: 818–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Butler, PJ, Dhara, SS. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: an assessment of the thyromental distance and Mallampati predictive tests. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992; 20: 139–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed