A comparative study between the macintosh laryngoscope and the king vision video laryngoscope in endotracheal intubation

Background Airway management remains a vital primary skill for anaesthesiologists. We aimed at comparing the efficacy of direct laryngoscopy using the conventional Macintosh blade with indirect laryngoscopy using the King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL) with regard to visualization of the laryngeal view, speed of intubation and intubation success rate.Patients and methods A total of 100 adult patients were randomly categorized into two equal groups (50 patients each): group M patients were subjected to general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation using direct laryngoscopy with the conventional Macintosh blade; and group K patients were subjected to general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation using the KVVL; the entire procedure of laryngoscopy and intubation was evaluated and all patients were intubated by one anaesthetist experienced in the use of each laryngoscope.Results The KVVL performed better in these patients by reducing haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation, improving the Cormack and Lehane glottis view, reducing the need for optimization manoeuvres and reducing the difficulty Likert scale score compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML). There were no differences in intubation time, success rates and complications between both devices.Conclusion This study validated the efficacy of the KVVL compared with the direct ML. The KVVL performed better than the ML.