ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Time to Intubation of a Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Utilizing C-MAC® Versus GlideScope® Versus Macintosh Blade: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacintosh blade direct laryngoscopy is widely used for endotracheal intubation. It may, however, provide an incomplete view of the glottis in patients with challenging airway anatomy. Consequently, various video laryngoscopes have been developed to enhance the visualization of the glottis and facilitate intubation. Yet, the effectiveness of these video laryngoscopes for intubation using a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT), which is longer, larger, and more rigid and has a linear configuration as opposed to the naturally semicircular curvature of a single-lumen endotracheal tube, remains uncertain. We hypothesized that video laryngoscopes would be more efficient for DLT intubation compared to the Macintosh blade in an adult manikin.
methodsNinety-four anesthesia providers, comprising 67 residents, 15 fellows, and 12 attendings, attempted to intubate an adult manikin with normal airway anatomy (Laerdal, Wappingers Falls, NY, USA) using a 37 Fr left-sided DLT. Three different intubation devices were used: the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), the GlideScope® video laryngoscope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA), and the Macintosh blade direct laryngoscope-were used. Each participant intubated a manikin once with each of the three devices. Participants were randomized via a crossover design with the order of devices determined by using a Latin square design. Time to intubation and the number of failed intubations (esophageal intubation) were compared across the three different devices.
resultsMean times to intubation for the C-MAC®, GlideScope®, and Macintosh blades were 18.57 ± 0.77, 36.26 ± 2.69, and 20.76 ± 0.96 seconds, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.001) between the GlideScope® and the other two laryngoscopes. The times for C-MAC® and Macintosh blades were not significantly different. There were two instances of first-attempt failed intubation with the Macintosh.
conclusionBoth the C-MAC® and the Macintosh blades proved more efficient in terms of time to DLT intubation in the manikin with normal airway anatomy, when compared to the GlideScope®. Considering the occurrence of first-attempt failed intubation, the C-MAC® was the most effective device among the three laryngoscopes for timely successful DLT intubation in the adult manikin. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in human subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.