2009Pediatric AnesthesiaRequires access

Validation of the glidescope video laryngoscope in pediatric patients

Andreas Redel, Funda Karademir, Anett Schlitterlau, Matthias Frommer, Lars‐Uwe Scholtz, Peter Kranke, Franz Kehl, Norbert Roewer, Markus Lange

Open publisher page 68 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: GlideScope laryngoscopy provides a glottic view equal or superior compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Data evaluating GlideScope laryngoscopy in pediatric patients are lacking. This study compared intubation times of GlideScope laryngoscopy vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in pediatric patients. METHODS: Sixty ASA I-III patients, aged 10 years or less, were included in this study. Prior to intubation, airway characteristics were measured, and all patients were given an airway class by a separate anesthesiologist using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Patients were then randomly assigned for endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or the GlideScope, and intubation time was measured. All blades were investigated for blood traces as a surrogate of laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Demographic data and airway characteristics were not statistically significant different between groups. GlideScope intubation time (14 +/- 5 s) was not different from Macintosh intubation time (13 +/- 5 s). Blood traces were not observed on Macintosh or GlideScope blades. CONCLUSION: The GlideScope video laryngoscope is equally suitable to facilitate orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to intubation time and laryngeal trauma.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: GlideScope laryngoscopy provides a glottic view equal or superior compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Data evaluating GlideScope laryngoscopy in pediatric patients are lacking. This study compared intubation times of GlideScope laryngoscopy vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in pediatric patients. METHODS: Sixty ASA I-III patients, aged 10 years or less, were included in this study. Prior to intubation, airway characteristics were measured, and all patients were given an airway class by a separate anesthesiologist using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Patients were then randomly assigned for endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or the GlideScope, and intubation time was measured. All blades were investigated for blood traces as a surrogate of laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Demographic data and airway characteristics were not statistically significant different between groups. GlideScope intubation time (14 +/- 5 s) was not different from Macintosh intubation time (13 +/- 5 s). Blood traces were not observed on Macintosh or GlideScope blades. CONCLUSION: The GlideScope video laryngoscope is equally suitable to facilitate orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to intubation time and laryngeal trauma.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 68 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: GlideScope laryngoscopy provides a glottic view equal or superior compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Data evaluating GlideScope laryngoscopy in pediatric patients are lacking. This study compared intubation times of GlideScope laryngoscopy vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in pediatric patients. METHODS: Sixty ASA I-III patients, aged 10 years or less, were included in this study. Prior to intubation, airway characteristics were measured, and all patients were given an airway class by a separate anesthesiologist using a Macintosh laryngoscope. Patients were then randomly assigned for endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or the GlideScope, and intubation time was measured. All blades were investigated for blood traces as a surrogate of laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Demographic data and airway characteristics were not statistically significant different between groups. GlideScope intubation time (14 +/- 5 s) was not different from Macintosh intubation time (13 +/- 5 s). Blood traces were not observed on Macintosh or GlideScope blades. CONCLUSION: The GlideScope video laryngoscope is equally suitable to facilitate orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to intubation time and laryngeal trauma.

Key concepts: Medicine, Laryngoscopy, Video laryngoscope, Intubation, Anesthesia, Airway, Endotracheal intubation, Laryngoscopes

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Validation of the glidescope video laryngoscope in pediatric patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens