A Comparison of GlideScope® Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


BACKGROUND:In this study, we compared the effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy (DL) and the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope (GVL) for nasotracheal intubation, as judged by the time to intubation (TTI—the primary outcome) and the ease of intubation.METHODS:Seventy patients requiring nasotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to intubation with the GVL or DL. TTI was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the start of laryngoscopy. A Visual Analog Scale assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, amount of bleeding, usage of Magill forceps, and the severity of postoperative sore throat were recorded.RESULTS:The median TTI was 23.2 s faster with the GVL (43.5 s, interquartile range [IQR]: 39.8–67.3) than with DL (66.7 s, IQR: 53.8–89.9), P = 0.0023. Nasotracheal intubation was easier with the GVL than with DL (Visual Analog Scale 10 mm, IQR: 5.5–18, vs 20 mm, IQR: 10–32, P = 0.0041). The incidence of postoperative moderate or severe sore throat was significantly reduced in the GVL group (9% vs 34%, P = 0.018). Glottic exposure was significantly better with the GVL. Magill forceps were not used in the GVL group, but were used 49% of the time in the DL group, P < 0.0001. The incidence and severity of bleeding were similar between groups.CONCLUSIONS:Compared with DL, the GVL has superior performance characteristics when used for nasotracheal intubation and demonstrates an important reduction of postoperative sore throat. The GVL has a clear role in routine nasotracheal intubation.

    loading  Loading Related Articles