PMID- 18635480
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20080821
LR  - 20220317
IS  - 1526-7598 (Electronic)
IS  - 0003-2999 (Linking)
VI  - 107
IP  - 1
DP  - 2008 Jul
TI  - A comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for 
      nasotracheal intubation.
PG  - 144-8
LID - 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared the effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy 
      (DL) and the GlideScope videolaryngoscope (GVL) for nasotracheal intubation, as 
      judged by the time to intubation (TTI-the primary outcome) and the ease of 
      intubation. METHODS: Seventy patients requiring nasotracheal intubation for 
      elective surgery were randomly allocated to intubation with the GVL or DL. TTI 
      was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the start of 
      laryngoscopy. A Visual Analog Scale assessed the ease of intubation. The number 
      of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, amount of bleeding, 
      usage of Magill forceps, and the severity of postoperative sore throat were 
      recorded. RESULTS: The median TTI was 23.2 s faster with the GVL (43.5 s, 
      interquartile range [IQR]: 39.8-67.3) than with DL (66.7 s, IQR: 53.8-89.9), P = 
      0.0023. Nasotracheal intubation was easier with the GVL than with DL (Visual 
      Analog Scale 10 mm, IQR: 5.5-18, vs 20 mm, IQR: 10-32, P = 0.0041). The incidence 
      of postoperative moderate or severe sore throat was significantly reduced in the 
      GVL group (9% vs 34%, P = 0.018). Glottic exposure was significantly better with 
      the GVL. Magill forceps were not used in the GVL group, but were used 49% of the 
      time in the DL group, P < 0.0001. The incidence and severity of bleeding were 
      similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DL, the GVL has superior 
      performance characteristics when used for nasotracheal intubation and 
      demonstrates an important reduction of postoperative sore throat. The GVL has a 
      clear role in routine nasotracheal intubation.
FAU - Jones, Philip M
AU  - Jones PM
AD  - Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of Western 
      Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. philip.jones@lhsc.on.ca
FAU - Armstrong, Kevin P
AU  - Armstrong KP
FAU - Armstrong, Paidrig M
AU  - Armstrong PM
FAU - Cherry, Richard A
AU  - Cherry RA
FAU - Harle, Christopher C
AU  - Harle CC
FAU - Hoogstra, Jason
AU  - Hoogstra J
FAU - Turkstra, Timothy P
AU  - Turkstra TP
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PL  - United States
TA  - Anesth Analg
JT  - Anesthesia and analgesia
JID - 1310650
SB  - IM
CIN - Anesth Analg. 2009 Feb;108(2):674; author reply 674. PMID: 19151313
CIN - Anesth Analg. 2009 Apr;108(4):1351; author reply 1351-2. PMID: 19299813
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Intubation, Intratracheal/*methods
MH  - Laryngoscopy/adverse effects/*methods
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Nose
MH  - Pharyngitis/etiology
MH  - Postoperative Complications/etiology
MH  - Time Factors
MH  - Video Recording
EDAT- 2008/07/19 09:00
MHDA- 2008/08/22 09:00
CRDT- 2008/07/19 09:00
PHST- 2008/07/19 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2008/08/22 09:00 [medline]
PHST- 2008/07/19 09:00 [entrez]
AID - 107/1/144 [pii]
AID - 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):144-8. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9.