Comparison of the Glidescope^®, the McGrath^®, the Airtraq^® and the Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airways

Authors: Savoldelli, G. L.; Schiffer, E.¹; Abegg, C.¹; Baeriswyl, V.¹; Clergue, F.²; Waeber, J. L.¹

Source: Anaesthesia, Volume 63, Number 12, December 2008 , pp. 1358-1364(7)

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $48.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Summary

Several indirect laryngoscopes have recently been developed, but relatively few have been formally compared. In this study we evaluated the efficacy and the usability of the Macintosh, the Glidescope^®, the McGrath^® and the Airtraq^® laryngoscopes. Sixty anaesthesia providers (20 staff, 20 residents, and 20 nurses) were enrolled into this study. The volunteers intubated the trachea of a Laerdal SimMan^® manikin in three simulated difficult airway scenarios. In all scenarios, indirect laryngoscopes provided better laryngeal exposure than the Macintosh blade and appeared to produce less dental trauma. In the most difficult scenario (tongue oedema), the Macintosh blade was associated with a high rate of failure and prolonged intubation times whereas indirect laryngoscopes improved intubation time and rarely failed. Indirect laryngoscopes were judged easier to use than the Macintosh. Differences existed between indirect devices. The Airtraq^® consistently provided the most rapid intubation. Laryngeal grade views were superior with the Airtraq^® and McGrath^® than with the Glidescope^®.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05653.x

Affiliations: 1: Staff Anaesthetist, 2: Professor of Anaesthesia, Department of Anaesthesia, Pharmacology and Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Switzerland

Publication date: 2008-12-01