There are several advantages of video laryngoscopy; especially their ability to provide superior glottis visualization, as compared to traditional laryngoscopy.1-3 The purpose of this three arm study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the King Vision® Video Intubation Systems (AMBU-King Systems, Denmark) to the Cobalt GlideScope® (Verathon Medical Inc., USA) in patients with anticipated difficult airways.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
225
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.
Overall Successful Tracheal Intubation for All 3 Video Laryngoscopes - GSAVL, KVChVL and KVNChVL
The overall intubation success rates for all 3 video laryngoscopes - GSAVL, KVChVL and KVNChVL
Time frame: During laryngoscopy and endotracheal tube placement
First-attempt Successful Intubation for All 3 Video Laryngoscopes - GSAVL, KVChVL and KVNChVL
The overall first-attempt success rates for all 3 video laryngoscopes - GSAVL, KVChVL and KVNChVL
Time frame: During laryngoscopy and endotracheal tube placement
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.