We have read with great interest an article “Comparison of the Intubrite and Macintosh
laryngoscope in difficult airway scenario” in which the authors compared the efficacy
of video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy [
[1]
]. They showed that the use of video laryngoscopy increases the effectiveness of endotracheal
intubation in conditions of difficult airways. In the reality of emergency medical
service endotracheal intubation, due to widespread availability, is a gold standard
for the protection of airways. However, as indicated by numerous studies, endotracheal
intubation should be performed by the most experienced person in the rescue team [
[2]
,
[3]
]. Unfortunately besides the obvious benefits of maintaining airway patency with this
method e.g. possibility of positive pressure ventilation, there are also numerous
potential complications when performing this procedure. When poorly performed it can
lead to tissue damage, cause bleeding, as well as dislocation of artenoid cartilage,
breakage or epiglottis, rupture of vocal folds or trachea and formation of pneumomediastinum.
Due to the high learning curve of direct laryngoscopy [
- Cavus E.
- Janssen S.
- Reifferscheid F.
- Caliebe A.
- Callies A.
- von der Heyden M.
- et al.
Videolaryngoscopy for physician-based, prehospital emergency intubation: a prospective,
randomized, multicenter comparison of different blade types using A.P. Advance, C-MAC
System, and KingVision.
Anesth Analg. Dec 11 2017; https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002735
[4]
], the use of video laryngoscopy, as indicated by numerous studies, may increase the
effectiveness of this procedure, especially when performed by people who have limited
experience in direct laryngoscopy. Many studies confirm that people without previous
experience in video laryngoscopy after completing a short training are able to perform
intubation with high efficiency [
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
].To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The American Journal of Emergency MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Comparison of the Intubrite and Macintosh laryngoscopes in a difficult airway scenario.Am J Emerg Med. Jun 2017; 35: 925https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.03.067
- A comparison of the McGrath-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for child tracheal intubation during resuscitation by paramedics. A randomized, crossover, manikin study.Am J Emerg Med. Aug 2016; 34: 1338-1341https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.11.060
- Videolaryngoscopy for physician-based, prehospital emergency intubation: a prospective, randomized, multicenter comparison of different blade types using A.P. Advance, C-MAC System, and KingVision.Anesth Analg. Dec 11 2017; https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002735
- Intubation learning curve: comparison between video and direct laryngoscopy by inexperienced students.J Med Life. 2015; 8: 150-153
- C-MAC compared with direct laryngoscopy for intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a manikin trial.Am J Emerg Med. Aug 2017; 35: 1142-1146https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.03.030
- Comparison of the Trachway video intubating stylet and Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation. Preliminary data.Am J Emerg Med. Apr 2017; 35: 574-575https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.015
- Comparison of direct and optical laryngoscopy during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Am J Emerg Med. Mar 2017; 35: 518-519https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.026
- A comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope and blind intubation via I-gel in intubating an entrapped patient: a randomized crossover manikin study.Am J Emerg Med. May 2017; 35: 787-789https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.11.048
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: February 02, 2018
Accepted:
January 25,
2018
Received:
January 24,
2018
Footnotes
☆Source of support: No sources of financial and material support to be declared.
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
