Comparison of Video Laryngoscope Using Miller or Macintosh Approach During Endotracheal Intubation

NCT05545982 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: VGHKS19-CT9-11
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 247
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Video laryngoscope has become recommended option during difficult intubation. Guidelines of ASA at 2013 had suggested using video laryngoscope after failure intubation of direct laryngoscope. Varieties of video laryngoscope had been invented with different curves. We call the one which has the same curve of Macintosh laryngoscope as conventional video laryngoscope in this study. Mostly, the way of using conventional video laryngoscope is suggested as Macintosh method. However, with the front positioning camera, Miller method can theoretically improve the glottic opening. We intend to discuss whether using Miller approach with conventional video laryngoscope can improve glottic opening or not.

Conditions

Difficult Intubation

Keywords

difficult intubation; video laryngoscope

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Change of cormack lehane grade

  Compare the difference of cormack lehane grade using Macintosh ot Miller approach.(cormack lehane grade has four gradings. Grade 1 represent entire glottic opening. Grade 4 represent vocal cord cab not be seen)

  Measured from glottic exposed by Macintosh approach to Miller approach. Record the cormack lehane grade. The whole precess will be completed within 5 minutes if there are no difficult intubation.

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Post intubation adverse event

  Visit the patient daily at post operation day 1 and record any adverse event until post operation day3 or the patient is discharged.

Study Arms (1)

Intubation with Miller approach

EXPERIMENTAL

Posttest group: Patient receive intubation with conventional video laryngoscope with Miller approach. Pretest group: Patient receive intubation with conventional video laryngoscope with Macintosh approach.

Procedure: Video laryngoscope with Miller approach

Interventions

Video laryngoscope with Miller approach PROCEDURE

Miller approach indicates lifting epiglottis during laryngoscopy, which is the way of using Miller laryngoscope

Intubation with Miller approach

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 20 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Aged\>20
• Scheduled to received operation that required general anesthesia with endotracheal tube \[3\] ASA I, II

You may not qualify if:

• Emergent surgery
• pregnant
• Limited mouth opening
• Poor dental condition
• Airway obstruction (oral tumor, hypopharyngeal cancer….etc)
• Deep neck infection
• Allergic to any anesthetic

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital.: lead

Study Sites (1)

Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital

Kaohsiung City, 813414, Taiwan

Location

Related Publications (6)

• Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dorges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jan;27(1):24-30. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32832d328d.

  PMID: 19809328 BACKGROUND

• Kido H, Komasawa N, Matsunami S, Kusaka Y, Minami T. Comparison of McGRATH MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation by anesthesia residents: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 2015 Sep;27(6):476-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.05.011. Epub 2015 Jun 22.

  PMID: 26111665 BACKGROUND

• El-Tahan MR, Khidr AM, Gaarour IS, Alshadwi SA, Alghamdi TM, Al'ghamdi A. A Comparison of 3 Videolaryngoscopes for Double-Lumen Tube Intubation in Humans by Users With Mixed Experience: A Randomized Controlled Study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018 Feb;32(1):277-286. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Aug 4.

  PMID: 29056498 BACKGROUND

• Aziz MF, Abrons RO, Cattano D, Bayman EO, Swanson DE, Hagberg CA, Todd MM, Brambrink AM. First-Attempt Intubation Success of Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the C-MAC D-Blade Versus the GlideScope in a Mixed Provider and Diverse Patient Population. Anesth Analg. 2016 Mar;122(3):740-750. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001084.

  PMID: 26579847 BACKGROUND

• Liu DX, Ye Y, Zhu YH, Li J, He HY, Dong L, Zhu ZQ. Intubation of non-difficult airways using video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a randomized, parallel-group study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 May 15;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0737-3.

  PMID: 31092191 BACKGROUND

• Huang P, Zhou R, Lu Z, Hang Y, Wang S, Huang Z. GlideScope(R) versus C-MAC(R)(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 May 20;20(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y.

  PMID: 32434470 BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• HAN-LIANG JIANG, MD

  Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology

  STUDY CHAIR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Director of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology

Model Details: one-group pretest-posttest study

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 7, 2022
• First Posted: September 19, 2022
• Study Start: October 4, 2019
• Primary Completion: November 22, 2021
• Study Completion: November 22, 2021
• Last Updated: September 19, 2022

Record last verified: 2022-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

TW (1)