Next Article in Journal
The Use of the Central Vein Sign in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Optical Devices in Tracheal Intubation—State of the Art in 2020
Previous Article in Journal
Prevalence of COVID-19 Diagnostic Output with Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comparison of a Standard Macintosh Blade Laryngoscope, Pentax-AWS Videolaryngoscope and Intubrite Videolaryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation in Manikins in Sitting and Prone Positions: A Randomized Cross-Over Study
Article

A Randomized Comparison of Non-Channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium Versus Channeled KingVisionTM Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Obese Patients with BMI > 35 kg·m−2

1
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, General University Hospital and First Medical Faculty of the Charles University, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic
2
Medical Faculty, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Department of Anaesthesia, Antrim Area Hospital, Antrim BT41 2RL, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2020, 10(12), 1024; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121024
Received: 31 October 2020 / Revised: 24 November 2020 / Accepted: 25 November 2020 / Published: 29 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Tracheal Intubation)
Videolaryngoscopes may improve intubating conditions in obese patients. A total of 110 patients with a body mass index > 35 kg∙m−2 were prospectively randomized to tracheal intubation using non-channeled Glidescope Titanium or channeled King Vision videolaryngoscope. The primary outcome was the time to tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included: total success rate, number of attempts, the quality of visualization, peri-procedural and post-proceduralcomplications. Time to the first effective breath was shorter with the King Vision (median; 95% CI)—36; 34–39 s vs. 42; 40–50 in the Glidescope group (p = 0.007). The total success rate was higher in the Glidescope group—100% vs. 89.1% (p = 0.03). There was a higher incidence of moderate and difficult laryngoscopy in the King Vision group. No difference was recorded in first attempt success rates, total number of attempts, use of additional maneuvers, intraoperative trauma, or any significant decrease in SpO2 during intubation. No serious complications were noted and the incidence of postoperative complaints was without difference. Although tracheal intubation with King Vision showed shorter time to the first breath, total success was higher in the Glidescope group, and all but one patients where intubation failed with the KingVision were subsequently intubated with the Glidescope. View Full-Text
Keywords: obesity; videolaryngoscopy; King VisionTM laryngoscope; Glidescope TitaniumTM laryngoscope; non-channeled blade; channeled blade obesity; videolaryngoscopy; King VisionTM laryngoscope; Glidescope TitaniumTM laryngoscope; non-channeled blade; channeled blade
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Brozek, T.; Bruthans, J.; Porizka, M.; Blaha, J.; Ulrichova, J.; Michalek, P. A Randomized Comparison of Non-Channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium Versus Channeled KingVisionTM Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Obese Patients with BMI > 35 kg·m−2. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121024

AMA Style

Brozek T, Bruthans J, Porizka M, Blaha J, Ulrichova J, Michalek P. A Randomized Comparison of Non-Channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium Versus Channeled KingVisionTM Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Obese Patients with BMI > 35 kg·m−2. Diagnostics. 2020; 10(12):1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brozek, Tomas; Bruthans, Jan; Porizka, Michal; Blaha, Jan; Ulrichova, Jitka; Michalek, Pavel. 2020. "A Randomized Comparison of Non-Channeled GlidescopeTM Titanium Versus Channeled KingVisionTM Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Obese Patients with BMI > 35 kg·m−2" Diagnostics 10, no. 12: 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121024

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop