ABSTRACT
Background
In this study, we compared the performance characteristics of Macintosh laryngoscope, CMAC videolaryngoscope with a recently developed videolaryngoscope called Smart Trach.
Research design and methods
Three hundred seventy-five patients belonging to mixed population without having anticipated difficult airways undergoing elective surgeries were randomly allocated to be intubated using either of the three laryngoscopes (Macintosh, CMAC, or Smart Trach). Time needed for successful intubation, number of attempts, Cormack Lehane’s (CL) grading, optimization maneuverers, intubation difficulty score (IDS), subjective ease of intubation (VAS), subjective lifting force, and complications were recorded.
Results
Demographic and anthropometric measurements (sex, height, weight, and body mass index) among the groups were comparable. CL grades, lifting force, IDS, VAS, and intubation times (seconds) were significantly different whereas need for maneuver, attempts, and complications was similar (p > 0.05 each). Intubation times (seconds) were significantly different between Macintosh [36(29–43) seconds], CMAC [30(24–37)], and Smart Trach [35(30–42] groups. (p < 0.001). Subjective ease of intubation based on VAS score was lowest in Smart trach group [1(1–2)] (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Shortest intubation times were achieved with CMAC with least use of lifting force. First attempt success rates of were similar. Intubation was easiest subjectively using Smart Trach as manifested by lowest VAS and IDS.
Trial Registration
Clinical Trial registry of India (CTRI/2019/09/021279 dated 17/09/2019)
Acknowledgments
Residents and Technologists of Department of Anaesthesiology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow who assisted in the conduct of the study.
Declaration of interest
Ashish Kumar Kannaujia is the developer of the device Smarttrach and has applied for the patent of the same. The other authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewers Disclosure
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.
Author contributions
Rudrashish Haldar: Conception & design, data collection, analysis & interpretation, drafting & revising, final approval.
Ashish Kumar Kannaujia: Conception and design, conduct of cases, data collection, critical revision
Rafat Shamim: Conduct of the cases, data collection, drafting & revising
Prabhaker Mishra: Analysis & interpretation, critical revision
All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.