Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) Revealing the Future of Airway Management: Video Laryngoscopy Vs. Macintosh Laryngoscopy for Enhanced Clinical Outcomes

Overview

Journal Cureus

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2024 Jan 17

PMID 38229823

Authors

Hany A Zaki

Eman Shaban

Mohamed Elgassim

Mohamed Fayed

Kaleem Basharat

Wael Elnabawy

Mohammed Gafar Abdelrahim

Ali Elkandow

Ahmed Mahdy

Aftab Azad

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Since the 1940s, Macintosh laryngoscopy (Mac laryngoscopy) has been the gold standard for tracheal intubation, offering visualization of the glottis entrance. However, recent years have witnessed the emergence of various video laryngoscopy (VL) techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of VL Mac laryngoscopy in an elective setting. We comprehensively searched five medical databases - PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. All the databases were last searched in January 2023. We only included studies with full texts comparing VL to Mac laryngoscopy clinical outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were non-full text or non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not compare VL to Mac laryngoscopy. We extracted data comprising author names, publication year, key study outcomes (first-attempt intubation success rate, Cormack and Lehane grade, hypoxia incidence, and glottis view quality), video laryngoscope types, and sample sizes of both VL and Mac laryngoscopy groups. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK), presenting results as odds ratio (OR) and risk ratios (RR) at a 95% confidence interval (CI). This facilitated the identification of relevant and appropriate studies of our analysis. The search produced 19 studies that were included in this review. The evaluated sample size ranges from 40 to 802, with 3,238 participants. The rate of success at the first attempt in the use of VL was 1,558/1,890 (82.43%), while the success rate for Mac laryngoscopy was 982/1,348 (72.85%; OR: 1.98 (1.25, 3.12)) at a 95% confidence interval. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference for hypoxia concerning the type of device used RR (random effects: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). A video laryngoscope had a higher likelihood of visualizing the vocal cords categorized as category 1 in the Cormack-Lehane system of classification (RR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.43-4.21). Additionally, considerably better glottis views were attained during VL than Mac laryngoscopy (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.19-2.62). In elective tracheal intubation, VL demonstrates superior first-attempt success rates, offers improved glottis visualization, and reduces instances where the glottis cannot be viewed compared to Mac laryngoscopy.

References

Liu T, Li L, Wan L, Zhang C, Yao W . Videolaryngoscopy vs. Macintosh laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2018; 73(8):997-1007. DOI: 10.1111/anae.14226. View

Ho C, Chen L, Hsu W, Lin T, Lee M, Lu C . A Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Nasotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(9). PMC: 9101392. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092499. View

Sakles J, Javedani P, Chase E, Garst-Orozco J, Guillen-Rodriguez J, Stolz U . The use of a video laryngoscope by emergency medicine residents is associated with a reduction in esophageal intubations in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2015; 22(6):700-7. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12674. View

Lili X, Zhiyong H, Jianjun S . A comparison of the GlideScope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2013; 26(1):27-31. DOI: 10.1097/ANA.0b013e31829a0491. View

Lascarrou J, Boisrame-Helms J, Bailly A, Le Thuaut A, Kamel T, Mercier E . Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy on Successful First-Pass Orotracheal Intubation Among ICU Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 317(5):483-493. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.20603. View

Huitink J, Bouwman R . The myth of the difficult airway: airway management revisited. Anaesthesia. 2014; 70(3):244-9. DOI: 10.1111/anae.12989. View

Wasem S, Lazarus M, Hain J, Festl J, Kranke P, Roewer N . Comparison of the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013; 30(4):180-6. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835fe574. View

Ilyas S, Symons J, Bradley W, Segal R, Taylor H, Lee K . A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing tracheal intubation plus manual in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine using the Macintosh laryngoscope vs the McGrath(®) Series 5 videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2014; 69(12):1345-50. DOI: 10.1111/anae.12804. View

Cooper R . Implementing universal videolaryngoscopy: how to do it and what to expect. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(1):13-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.017. View

10.

Frohlich S, Borovickova L, Foley E, OSullivan E . A comparison of tracheal intubation using the McGrath or the Macintosh laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 28(6):465-7. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283452155. View

11.

Yoo J, Chae Y, Lee Y, Kim S, Lee J, Kim D . A comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope, McGrath video laryngoscope, and Pentax Airway Scope in paediatric nasotracheal intubation. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):17365. PMC: 6255773. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-35857-8. View

12.

Aziz M, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink A . Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116(3):629-36. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318246ea34. View

13.

Kim M, Park S, Lee J . Randomized comparison of the Pentax AirWay Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111(4):662-6. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet201. View

14.

Cook T, El-Boghdadly K, McGuire B, McNarry A, Patel A, Higgs A . Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of.... Anaesthesia. 2020; 75(6):785-799. PMC: 7383579. DOI: 10.1111/anae.15054. View

15.

Peterson G, Domino K, Caplan R, Posner K, Lee L, Cheney F . Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2005; 103(1):33-9. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00009. View

16.

Hoshijima H, Denawa Y, Tominaga A, Nakamura C, Shiga T, Nagasaka H . Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2017; 44:69-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.11.008. View

17.

Salama E, El Amrousy D . GlideScope cobalt video laryngoscope versus direct Miller laryngoscope for lateral position-tracheal intubation in neonates with myelodysplasia: A prospective randomized study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019; 13(1):28-34. PMC: 6329240. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_460_18. View

18.

Shah S, Bhargava A, Hariharan U, Mittal A, Goel N, Choudhary M . A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Standard Mcintosh Laryngoscope and the C-Mac D blade Video laryngoscope™ for Double Lumen Tube Insertion for One Lung Ventilation in Onco surgical Patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2016; 60(5):312-8. PMC: 4870943. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.181591. View

19.

Russell T, Slinger P, Roscoe A, McRae K, van Rensburg A . A randomised controlled trial comparing the GlideScope(®) and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen endobronchial intubation. Anaesthesia. 2013; 68(12):1253-8. DOI: 10.1111/anae.12322. View

20.

Aoi Y, Inagawa G, Nakamura K, Sato H, Kariya T, Goto T . Airway scope versus macintosh laryngoscope in patients with simulated limitation of neck movements. J Trauma. 2010; 69(4):838-42. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c4529e. View