Title: A Prospective Randomized Study to Compare and Evaluate King Vision Video Laryngoscope and McCoy Laryngoscope as Intubating Devices in Adult Patients
Authors: Dr Sarfaraz Ahmad, Dr Qazi Ehsan Ali, Dr Md Kashif Jamal, Dr Shadab Kamal, Dr Krochi Pal
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i3.158
Abstract
Background: McCoy laryngoscope and many video laryngoscopes are being increasingly used and have a definitive advantage over conventional laryngoscopes in management of anticipated and unanticipated difficult airways. The aim of our study was to compare relative effectiveness of McCoy laryngoscope with king vision video laryngoscope in patients undergoing oral tracheal intubation.
Methods: sixty patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II, aged 20 – 60 years, posted for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into Group KVL (King vision video laryngoscope group, n=30) and Group MCC (McCoy group, n=30). The two groups were compared for demographic data, number of intubation attempts, ease of intubation, time to intubation, haemodynamic parameters and any airway trauma.
Results: The demographic data and ASA status was comparable in both the groups. Group KVL had a significantly more first attempts to intubation compared to Group MCC (p < 0.05). The incidence of ease of intubation grade I with King vision video laryngoscope was 93% while with McCoy laryngoscope was 87%. Th intubation time was less with King vision video laryngoscope as compared to Mc Coy laryngoscope.
There was a transient increase in heart rate and blood pressure after intubation in both the groups which returned back to the baseline within 10 minutes, but rise were less in KVL group. Less airway trauma was noted in the KVL group as compared to MCC groups.
Conclusion: King vision video laryngoscope resulted in better first attempt intubation and less time of intubation than McCoy laryngoscope. Patients in KVL group were more haemodynamicaly stable and less airway trauma were observed.
Keywords: McCoy laryngoscope(MCC), King vision video laryngoscope(KVL), tracheal intubation.
References
1. Braz LG, Modolo NS, do Nascimento P Jr, Bruschi BA, Castiglia YM, Ganem EM, et al. Perioperative cardiac arrest: a study of 53, 718 anaesthetics over 9 year from a Brazilian teaching hospital. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96:569-75.
2. Rose DK, Cohen MM.The Airway : problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anaesth 1994;41:372–83.
3. Tse JC, Rimm EB, Hussain A. Predicting difficult endotracheal intubation in surgical patients scheduled for general anesthesia: a prospective blind study. AnesthAnalg 1995;81:254–8.
4. Chisholm DG, Calder I.Experience with the McCoy laryngoscope in difficult laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1997;52:906–8.
5. McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, Rafferty C, Bunting H, Austin BA. A comparison of the forces exerted during laryngoscopy. The Macintosh versus the McCoy blade. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 912–5.
6. McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, McCloskey BV. A comparison of the stress response to laryngoscopy. The Macintosh versus the McCoy blade. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 943–6.
7. McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK. The levering laryngoscope.Anaesthesia 1993; 48: 516–9.
8. El-Tahan M, Doyle DJ, Khidr AM, Hassieb AG. Case Report: Double lumen tube insertion in a morbidly obese patient through the non-channelled blade of the King Vision (™) videolaryngoscope. F1000Res. 2014;3:129. eCollection 2014.