Randomized Prospective Comparison of Glidescope Video Laryngoscope with Macintosh Laryngoscope in Adult Who Underwent Thyroid or Parathyroid Surgery Using Neuromonitorization

Overview

Journal Sisli Etfal Hastan Tıp Bul

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2020 Dec 14

PMID 33312030

Citations 1

Authors

Murat Gunes

Ayse Surhan Cinar

Mehmet Uludag

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The present study aims to compare the effects of Glidescope Video Laryngoscope (GVL) and Machintosh Laryngoscope (ML) on the hemodynamic response, intubation time and mucosal damage in adult patients who underwent thyroid or parathyroid surgery using neuromonitorization.

Methods: In this study, 180 patients, aged between 22 and 65 classified as Class I-II in ASA and operated under elective conditions were included. Patients were assigned into two groups: Patients intubated with GVL Group G (n=90) and patients intubated with ML Group M (n=90). In both groups, intubation time and the number of trials were recorded. HR (Heart Rate), SpO2 (Peripheral Capillary Oxygen Saturation), SBP (Systolic Blood Pressure), DBP (Diastolic Blood Pressure) and MBP (Mean Blood Pressure) scores were recorded at preinduction, post-induction, post-intubation and three minutes after intubation. Post-operative intubation-associated complications were recorded.

Results: Post intubation HR, DBP and MBP scores were found to be significantly higher in Group M than Group G (p=0,006, p=0.013, p=0.011). Intubation time was found to be significantly higher in Group G than in group M (35.3±10.3, 22.1±7.7 sec). There was no significant difference between the groups' number of trials and intubation-associated complications.

Conclusion: Despite its long intubation time, we believe that GVL may be the first choice laryngoscopy method in the thyroid or parathyroid cases that intubated with a low dose muscle relaxant for neuromonitoring since it has a slight effect than ML on hemodynamism it does not increase mucosal damage and has improved visibility.

Citing Articles

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Hansel J, Rogers A, Lewis S, Cook T, Smith A Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 4():CD011136.

PMID: 35373840 PMC: 8978307. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3.

References

Eisele D . Intraoperative electrophysiologic monitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Laryngoscope. 1996; 106(4):443-9. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199604000-00010. View

Dashti M, Amini S, Azarfarin R, Totonchi Z, Hatami M . Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation with glidescope(®) video-laryngoscope in patients with untreated hypertension. Res Cardiovasc Med. 2014; 3(2):e17598. PMC: 4253794. DOI: 10.5812/cardiovascmed.17598. View

Carassiti M, Biselli V, Cecchini S, Zanzonico R, Schena E, Silvestri S . Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal airway: an in vivo study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013; 79(5):515-24. View

Carassiti M, Zanzonico R, Cecchini S, Silvestri S, Cataldo R, Agro F . Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth. 2011; 108(1):146-51. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer304. View

Misirlioglu G, Sen O . Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscope in ear-nose and throat surgery. Ir J Med Sci. 2016; 185(3):729-733. DOI: 10.1007/s11845-015-1393-3. View

Pournajafian A, Ghodraty M, Faiz S, Rahimzadeh P, Goodarzynejad H, Dogmehchi E . Comparing GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope Regarding Hemodynamic Responses During Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014; 16(4):e12334. PMC: 4028761. DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.12334. View

Andersen L, Rovsing L, Olsen K . GlideScope videolaryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011; 55(9):1090-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02498.x. View

Amini S, Shakib M . Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing cesarean section with general anesthesia: application of glidescope® videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope. Anesth Pain Med. 2015; 5(2):e21836. PMC: 4389105. DOI: 10.5812/aapm.21836. View

Choi G, Lee E, Lim C, Yoon S . A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011; 60(5):339-43. PMC: 3110292. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2011.60.5.339. View

10.

Aqil M, Khan M, Hussain A, Khokhar R, Mansoor S, Alzahrani T . Routine Use of Glidescope and Macintosh Laryngoscope by Trainee Anesthetists. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016; 26(4):245-9. DOI: 2284. View

11.

Lu I, Tsai C, Wu C, Cheng K, Wang F, Tseng K . A comparative study between 1 and 2 effective doses of rocuronium for intraoperative neuromonitoring during thyroid surgery. Surgery. 2011; 149(4):543-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.006. View

12.

Kanotra S, Kuriloff D, Lesser J, Rest-Flarer F . GlideScope-assisted nerve integrity monitoring tube placement for intra-operative recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring. J Laryngol Otol. 2012; 126(12):1271-3. DOI: 10.1017/S0022215112002460. View

13.

Han Y, Liang F, Chen P . Dosage effect of rocuronium on intraoperative neuromonitoring in patients undergoing thyroid surgery. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014; 71(1):143-6. DOI: 10.1007/s12013-014-0176-1. View

14.

Cirilla 2nd D, Ngo J, Vaisman V, Daly C, Ata A, Sandison M . Does the incidence of sore throat postoperatively increase with the use of a traditional intubation blade or the GlideScope?. J Clin Anesth. 2015; 27(8):646-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.06.005. View

15.

Parasa M, Yallapragada S, Vemuri N, Shaik M . Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures. Anesth Essays Res. 2016; 10(2):245-9. PMC: 4864696. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.167840. View

16.

Channa A . Video laryngoscopes. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011; 5(4):357-9. PMC: 3227301. DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.87262. View