Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation (TTI) in Conventional Laryngoscope with Video Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation In Laproscopic Surgeries

Lakshmi S Pillai; Sridevi Mulimani; Anusha Suntan; Deepa S  Dandoti

doi:10.18502/aacc.v10i1.14776

Lakshmi S Pillai Department of Anaesthesiology, Sree Narayana Institute of Medical Science, Kerala, India.
Sridevi Mulimani Department of Anaesthesiology, Shri B. M. Patil Medical College, BLDE, Vijayapura, Karnataka, India.
Anusha Suntan Department of Anaesthesiology, Shri B. M. Patil Medical College, BLDE, Vijayapura, Karnataka, India.
Deepa S Dandoti Department of Anaesthesiology, Shri B. M. Patil Medical College, BLDE, Vijayapura, Karnataka, India.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v10i1.14776

Keywords: Direct laryngoscopy; Videolaryngoscope; Time to intubate; King vision

Abstract

Background: Direct laryngoscopy necessitates the alignment of the oropharyngeal-laryngeal axis whereas video laryngoscope is an optical vision which doesn’t require alignment. This study aimed to compare direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade to King-Vision Video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients who were scheduled for elective laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia.

Methods: In this prospective randomised clinical study,118 adults with ASA I and II requiring endotracheal intubation for laproscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were enrolled and randomised into either of the two groups by envelope method, Group DL-direct laryngoscope and Group VL-video laryngoscope where they were intubated using direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blade or King Vision videolaryngoscope. The Primary objective was to compare Time to intubate(TTI), Visualization of the laryngeal view by Cormack-Lehane grade and Successful first attempt. Secondary objective was to record the Number of intubation failure, Number of attempts, Change of anaesthesiologist and use of adjunct equipment and the complications such as oropharyngeal trauma, neck pain, dysphagia and hoarseness.

Results: In comparison to group DL (21.67±4.318s), group VL took longer time to intubate (26.21± 4.150s) but had superior glottic vision than DL group(p=0.0177). Compared to DL group (72.4%), the VL (84.5%) patients had their first successful attempt, inspite of 2 failures. Complications such as pharyngeal pain (8.6%vs29.3%), hoarseness (5.2%vs29.3%), Use of adjunct equipment like bougie (19%vs 3.4%) were significantly higher in DL compared to VL group, while oropharyngeal injury, dysphagia, number of attempts and change of anaesthetists were similar in both groups.

Conclusion: In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, the King-vision VideoLaryngoscope took longer to intubate but had clearer glottis visualisation and a higher first-time success rate and can be used as a good teaching tool. In King-vision video laryngoscope, there was less use of auxiliary equipment and fewer complications.