ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization. METHODS: A total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded. RESULTS: The first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubation with King Vision VL.
