A Comparative Study Between Video Laryngoscope and Video Stylet for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Simulated Cervical Fracture Injury: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study.

Purpose Video laryngoscopes were being used more often in cases of potentially difficult airways. The Karl Storz video stylet offered clear advantages over conventional laryngoscopes for patients with cervical spine fractures. This study aimed to compare the performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope with the new Karl Storz video stylet in patients with simulated cervical fracture injuries. Material and methods The study, approved by the Board of Studies and the Ethical Committee of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital in Aligarh, involved 50 patients undergoing operative procedures under general anaesthesia. It was a prospective randomised controlled study on patients aged 20-60, weighing 30-80 kg, and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grades I and II, admitted for elective operative procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups for intubation using different devices: the control group (N = 25) was intubated with the C-MAC (Mac blade) video laryngoscope (CM), and the study group (N = 25) was intubated with the Karl Storz video stylet (VS). The anaesthetic procedure involved a detailed pre-anesthetic check-up for all patients, including a medical history review, physical examination, and necessary tests based on age. Standard monitoring and pre-medication were administered uniformly. Anesthesia was induced and intubation was attempted using appropriate devices, following manual stabilisation of the neck. Parameters such as intubation attempts, time taken, failures, hemodynamic changes, and complications were recorded throughout the procedure. If intubation was unsuccessful, alternative measures were taken, and the operative procedure proceeded. Results The intubation success rates were compared between the two groups, CM and VS. In the CM group, all 25 patients (100%) were successfully intubated on the first attempt, while in the VS group, 23 patients (92%) were successfully intubated on the first attempt, and two patients (8%) required two attempts. The difference in the distribution of the number of attempts between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.4915). The mean intubation time in the CM group was 27.24 ± 2.16 seconds, while in the VS group, the mean intubation time was significantly longer at 30.84 ± 6.81 seconds, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0105). Adjustment manoeuvres were required in only 4% of patients in the CM group compared to 0% in the VS group, although this difference was not statistically significant. The occurrence of blood on the device during intubation was recorded, and the distribution of patients with blood on the device among the two groups did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.617). Conclusion This study compared the effectiveness of two intubation devices. The C-MAC video laryngoscope showed a significantly higher rate of first-attempt successful intubations and required fewer attempts compared to the Karl Storz video stylet. The C-MAC also had shorter intubation times compared to the Karl Storz device. However, the Karl Storz video stylet demonstrated comparable performance to the C-MAC video laryngoscope in clinical settings, with both devices having similar safety profiles and minimal complications.