A comparison of the GlideScope® with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway

Abstract

We compared the use of the GlideScope® and the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated difficult airway. The primary hypothesis was that time to intubation would be shorter using the GlideScope® than using the Macintosh laryngoscope. After obtaining approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent, we recruited 60 ASA 1 and 2 patients to our randomized controlled trial. Group G (n=30) had tracheal intubation performed using the GlideScope® and Group M (n=30) were intubated using a Macintosh laryngoscope. We simulated a difficult airway in each patient by having an experienced assistant provide in-line manual stabilization of the head and neck. We recorded the best laryngeal view; difficulty of the tracheal intubation; time taken for successful tracheal intubation; manoeuvre needed to aid tracheal intubation and complications associated with the tracheal intubation. The median Cormack and Lehane grade was significantly better in Group G than Group M. Group G had a significantly shorter intubation time than group M (mean 41.8s±SD 20.2 vs mean 56.2s±26.6, P<0.05). The GlideScope® improved the laryngeal view and decreased time for tracheal intubation time when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with simulated difficult airway. The GlideScope® may be a good alternative for managing the difficult airway but clinical trials evaluating its use on patients with an actual difficult airway are needed.