Background: Video laryngoscope has recently been introduced as an alternative for performing intubation; however, its validity in emergency settings has not been thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess its value compared with direct laryngoscope in emergency settings. Purpose: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its value compared with direct laryngoscope in emergency settings. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies published through April 2011. Trials that reported data comparing video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope-assisted intubation in the emergency room or prehospital locations were included. Results: Four trials reporting a total of 1305 participants were identified. During intubation, video laryngoscope failed to produce high rates of successful intubation (success rate: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-1.01). Time to intubation was not different when using either video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscope (standardized mean difference: 0.19; 95% CI: -0.20-0.58). Furthermore, video laryngoscope seems to achieve a similar glottic view as direct laryngoscope (ratio of better glottic view: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.63-1.46). Conclusion: In the reviewed studies, video laryngoscope was not superior to direct laryngoscope for performing intubation in emergency settings. © 2012.
Lee, Y. K., Chen, C. C., Wang, T. L., Lin, K. J., & Su, Y. C. (2012). Comparison of video and direct laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in emergency settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Acute Medicine, 2(2), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacme.2012.04.003