Comparison of king vision video laryngoscope versus mccoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine

Jitendra Kumar  Yadav; Raj Kumar  Harshwal; Savita Meena; Neelu Sharma; Sukirti Sharma; Jain Prashant Abhay

doi:10.18231/j.joapr.2023.11.3.11.17

Authors

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Department of Anaesthesia, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Raj Kumar Harshwal Department of Orthopaedics, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Savita Meena Department of Anaesthesia, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Neelu Sharma Department of Anaesthesia, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Sukirti Sharma Department of Anaesthesia, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Jain Prashant Abhay Department of Anaesthesia, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.joapr.2023.11.3.11.17

Keywords:

Cervical Immobilization, King Vision Video laryngoscope, McCoy Laryngoscope

Abstract

Background: Objective of this study was to compare King vision video laryngoscope versus McCoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with simulated immobilized cervical spine in terms of mean intubation time and number of attempts and successful intubation. Methodology: This was a prospective randomized study of 70 patients of ASA Grade I or II and aged 18- 60yrs, who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Intubation was done with either King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade) [Group A] or McCoy laryngoscope [Group B] after immobilizing the cervical spine using a cervical collar. We compared the mean intubation time, success rate and intubation difficulty using the Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS), glottic visualization using POGO score, hemodynamic parameters and complication if any. Results: Both the groups were comparable regarding the demographic variables such as age, sex, weight and ASA class. The mean intubation time of patients in Group A was significantly less (16.57 ± 4.11 seconds) than Group B (20.14 ± 5.72 seconds) (P= 0.004). IDS and POGO scoring were found significantly better in group A as compared to group B. But intubation success rate was 100% in both groups. Hemodynamic parameters and complications were also comparable. Conclusion: King Vision video laryngoscope is found superior to the McCoy laryngoscope if cervical immobilization is anticipated in terms of ease of intubation and glottic visualization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ali QE, Amir SH, Ahmed S. A comparative evaluation of King Vision video laryngoscope (channelled blade), McCoy, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine. Sri Lankan Journal of Anaesthesiology 25(2), 70 – 75 (2017)

Pal R, Chauhan S, Ved BK, Lad SR. Evaluation of laryngoscopic view, intubation difficulty and sympathetic response during direct laryngoscopy in sniffing position and simple head extension: a prospective and randomized comparative study. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 3(8), 1895 – 1901 (2015)

Jain D, Bala I, Gandhi K. Comparative effectiveness of McCoy laryngoscope and CMAC(®) videolaryngoscope in simulated cervical spine injuries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 32, 59-64. (2016).

Varshney P, Ahmed SM, Siddiqui OA, Nadeem A, Ajmal PM. A comparative evaluation of Airtraq and Hansraj Video laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization - A randomized prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 37, 336-41. (2021).

Bharti N, Arora S, Panda NB. A comparison of McCoy, TruView, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine. Saudi J Anaesth 8, 188-92. (2014).

McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK. The levering laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 48, 516-9. (1993).

Laurent SC, de Melo AE, Alexander-Williams JM. The use of the McCoy laryngoscope in patients with simulated cervical spine injuries. Anaesthesia 51, 74-5. (1996).

Sabry LA, Shaarawy SS, Ellakany MH. Comparison between C-MAC D-blade and McCoy laryngoscopes in intubating patients during cervical immobilization. Res Opin Anesth Intensive Care 3, 122 – 8 (2016)

El-Tahan M, Doyle DJ, Khidr AM, Hassieb AG. Case Report: Double lumen tube insertion in a morbidly obese patient through the non-channelled blade of the King Vision (™) videolaryngoscope. F1000Res 3, 129. (2014).

Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 39, 1105-11. (1984).

Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Acad Emerg Med 5, 919-23. (1998).

Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Plaisance P, Lapandry C. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS): proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 87, 1290-7. (1997).

Chandra PS, Ahmad S, Krishan G, Singh R, Agarwal M, Singh K. Comparative evaluation of King Vision King vision video laryngoscope and McCoy laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine: a prospective randomized study. Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research 8 (11), 308-315 (2020)

Biswal D, Pradhan BK, Hari Shankar R. A Comparative Evaluation of the Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope and McCoy Laryngoscope in Patients Posted for Cervical Spine Surgery, Undergoing Tracheal Intubation for General Anaesthesia. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical 6(3), 1257-1263 (2018)

Singhal V, Bhandari G, Shahi KS, Chand G. Comparative Study of McCoy, Airtraq and King’s Vision Videolaryngoscope in Simulated Difficult Laryngoscopy Using Rigid Neck Collar. Annals of International Medical and Dental Research 6(4), 5 – 9 (2020)

Ahmed SM, Ajmal PM, Ali S, Athar M. A comparative evaluation of C-MAC video laryngoscope and king vision video laryngoscope in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization: A prospective randomized study. Austin J anesthesia and analgesia 6(1), 1066 (2018)

Murphy LD, Kovacs GJ, Reardon PM, Law JA. Comparison of the king vision video laryngoscope with the macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med 47, 239-46. (2014).

Rendeki S, Keresztes D, Woth G, Mérei Á, Rozanovic M, Rendeki M, Farkas J, Mühl D, Nagy B. Comparison of VividTrac®, Airtraq®, King Vision®, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for difficult and normal airways in mannequins by novices. BMC Anesthesiol 17, 68. (2017).

Shravanalakshmi D, Bidkar PU, Narmadalakshmi K, Lata S, Mishra SK, Adinarayanan S. Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial. Surg Neurol Int 8, 19. (2017).

Votruba J, Brozek T, Blaha J, Henlin T, Vymazal T, Donaldson W, Michalek P. Video Laryngoscopic Intubation Using the King VisionTM Laryngoscope in a Simulated Cervical Spine Trauma: A Comparison Between Non-Channeled and Channeled Disposable Blades. Diagnostics (Basel) 10, 139 (2020).

Gabbott DA. Laryngoscopy using the McCoy laryngoscope after application of a cervical collar. Anaesthesia 51, 812-4 (1996).

Ali QE, Amir SH, Jamil S, Ahmad S. A comparative evaluation of the Airtraq and King Vision video laryngoscope as an intubating aid in adult patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 66, 81-5 (2015).

Gulabani M, Gupta V, Chauhan R, Choudhary, Saxena AK, Vasudev P. Comparative Evaluation of King Vision Video Laryngoscope, McCoy and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Patients Scheduled for Mucormycosis Surgery: A Randomised Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 16(3), 5 – 10 (2022)

Kumar M, Gupta A, Mahajan H, Dhanerwa R, Chauhan P. Intubation with King Vision® video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical spine injured: A randomized controlled trial. The Indian Anaesthetists Forum 20(2), 89 – 94 (2019)