Search

A recent study compared the performance of the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in the operating theatre. The study found that 19% of patients in the direct laryngoscopy group had a difficult laryngoscopy. However, it is unclear why there was an increase in the incidence of difficult laryngoscopy compared to a previous study. Additionally, the study's sample size evaluation used a higher first-pass success rate for direct laryngoscopy than what was reported in previous research. The study also did not include an interim analysis, which may have affected the trial's results. [Extracted from the article]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A comparison of single-handed chin lift and two-handed jaw thrust for tracheal intubation using a lightwand" written by S.M. Yang, which includes techniques for anesthesia patients.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Nasotracheal intubation of a patient with restricted mouth opening using a McGrath MAC X-Blade and Magill forceps," by Z. İ. Arslan and colleagues.

Keywords: Prediction; Risk factors; Difficult intubation EN Prediction Risk factors Difficult intubation 630 630 1 07/25/20 20200801 NES 200801 This comment refers to the article available at 10.1007/s00540-019-02721-6. In multivariate analysis, odds ratios of LNE for difficult laryngoscopy and intubation were significantly greater than those of low thyromental height test and high modified Mallampati test, but LNE was not identified as a risk factor. Second, difficult laryngoscopy is a main determinant of successful intubation with direct laryngoscopy, but incidence of difficult laryngoscopy (12%) in this study was lower than incidence of difficult intubation was 17%. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a novel method that is drawing more and more attention as an alternative to awake intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB). This meta-analysis is designed to determine the performance of VL compared to the FOB for awake intubation.Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched from database inception until October 30, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing VL and FOB for awake intubation were selected. The primary outcome was the overall success rate. Rev-Man 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes.Results: Six studies (446 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show any difference in the overall success rate by using VL and FOB (relative risk [RR], 1.00; P=0.99; high-quality evidence). There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2=0). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between two groups through nasal (RR, 1.00; P=1.00; high-quality evidence) and oral intubations (RR, 1.00; P=0.98; high-quality evidence). The intubation time was shorter by using VL than by using FOB (mean difference, -40.4 seconds; P<0.01; low-quality evidence). There were no differences between groups for other outcomes (P>0.05).Conclusion: For awake intubation, VL with a shorter intubation time is as effective and safe as FOB. VL may be a useful alternative to FOB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]