ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Vie Scope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Adults With an Expected Easy Airway: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe technique of visualizing the vocal cords during direct laryngoscopy has made the Macintosh laryngoscope (HEINE Optotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Gilching, Germany) the optimal choice for endotracheal intubation since the middle of the 20th century. On the other hand, the use of full personal protective equipment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impeded the successful completion of medical procedures, such as endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients infected with COVID-19. These circumstances necessitated the development of a new type of laryngoscope, the Vie Scope (Adroit Surgical LLC, Oklahoma City, OK, USA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA single-blind, randomized, prospective, superiority clinical trial was conducted. Patients with an expected easy airway were enrolled and allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the Vie Scope or Macintosh. The first-attempt intubation success rate and the required intubation time were defined as primary outcome measures, while the overall intubation success rate and glottis visualization, as classified by the Cormack-Lehane scale, were considered secondary outcomes.
resultsThis study included 264 patients. The required intubation time was shorter with the Macintosh than with the Vie Scope (median (interquartile range (IQR)): 7.80 (1.50) and mean (standard deviation (SD)): 8.08 (5.34) seconds vs. median (IQR): 15.65 (3.90) and mean (SD): 16.65 (5.02) seconds, difference in means: 8.60 seconds, 95% CI: -∞ to 7.9, p<0.0001). The first-attempt intubation success rate was estimated at 100% (132/132) and 90.15% (119/132) using the Macintosh and Vie Scope, respectively (relative risk: 0.90 (=1/1.1, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95), p=0.0002). Furthermore, a higher overall intubation success rate was noted with the Macintosh (132/132, 100%) than with the Vie Scope (124/132, 93.94%), p=0.0041. No statistically significant difference was detected between the laryngoscopes regarding the degree of the glottis visualization (p=0.7895).
conclusionsThe first-attempt and overall intubation success rates, as well as the required intubation time with the Macintosh, were superior to those with the Vie Scope when used for the establishment of anticipated easy airways, without a statistically significant difference in glottis visualization grade.
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.