GlideScope®Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation: Implication of the Size of Blade

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01616771
• Recruitment Status: Completed
• First Posted: June 12, 2012
• Results First Posted: November 2, 2014
• Last Update Posted: November 4, 2014
• Sponsor: Seoul National University Hospital
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): Jin-Tae Kim, Seoul National University Hospital

Study Description

Brief Summary:

The investigators evaluated the usefulness of the Glidescope(GVL) compared with direct laryngoscopy in patients whose airway management are anticipated difficult (C&L grade ≥3) by comparing the laryngoscopic view. Also, the investigators compared the effectiveness of smaller-size blade of GVL (GVLs) with standard blade of GVL selected by patient's weight (GVLw) in the same patients.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Intubation; Difficult	Device: Macintosh laryngoscope; Device: GVL selected by weight; Device: smaller sized GVL	Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

We assumed that smaller sized GVL can slide more angulated along the tongue, so the tip of a blade can be placed more anterior and cephalad. The angle of camera would be optimized by inserting the blade further with the blade tip directed toward the larynx. This optimization may be more remarkable with smaller blade because it can be inserted with rotation. Furthermore, the location and the angle of camera are different according to GVL blade size. Considering that patient with difficult airway has hypognathia and more cephalad larynx, it may be helpful with smaller sized GVL (GVLs) rather than GVL selected by weight (GVLw) for improvement of laryngoscopic view in patients with difficult airways. We hypothesized that GVLs can provide better laryngoscopic view than GVLw and DL in patient with difficult airway.

Study Design

• Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial)
• Actual Enrollment: 23 participants
• Allocation: N/A
• Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)
• Official Title: GlideScope®Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation: Implication of the Size of Blade
• Study Start Date: February 2011
• Actual Primary Completion Date: January 2012
• Actual Study Completion Date: January 2012

Arms and Interventions

Arm

Intervention/treatment

glottis view assessment; Glottis view assessment using Macintosh laryngoscope & GVL selected by weight & smaller sized GVL in single patient

Device: Macintosh laryngoscope; Glottis view assessment by direct visualization using Macintosh laryngoscope; Device: GVL selected by weight; Glottis view assessment by GVL selected by weight which is usually selected first; Other Name: GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy selected by weight; Device: smaller sized GVL; Glottis view assessment by GVL which is smaller in one size than GVL selected by age; Other Name: smaller sized GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. The Differences in the Glottis View (C&L Grade) of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GVL Selected by Weight. [ Time Frame: up to 1 day of surgery ]

   Glottis view was scored using C&L grade by Macintosh laryngoscope and GVL selected by weight, and compared each other.

   We used modified C&L grade: grade 1, all or most of the glottic aperture was visible; grade 2a, posterior cords and cartilage visible; grade 2b, only posterior cartilage visible; grade 3a, epiglottis visible and can be lifted; grade 3b, epiglottis adherent to the posterior pharynx; and grade 4, the epiglottis could not be visualized.

   For the statistical analysis, the modified C&L grade was converted to an ordinal scale; grade 1 to 1, grade 2a to 2, grade 2b to 3, grade 3a to 4, grade 3b to 5, and grade 4 to 6. Therefore, score range for the data reported in the table was between 1 and 6, with 1 representing best view and 6 representing no view.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. The Differences in the Glottis View (C&L Grade) of GVL Selected by Weight and Smaller Sized GVL [ Time Frame: up to 1day of surgery ]

   Glottis view was scored using C&L grade by GVL selected by weight and smaller sized GVL, and compared each other.

   Score range for the data reported in the table was between 1 and 6, with 1 representing best view and 6 representing no view.

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Child, Adult, Older Adult
• Sexes Eligible for Study: All
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients whose C&L grade were over 3 in previous anesthetic records.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients with pulmonary aspiration, increased intracranial pressure, and severe cardiovascular disease

Contacts and Locations

Sponsors and Collaborators

Seoul National University Hospital

Investigators

• Study Director: Jin-Tae Kim, professor; Seoul National University Hospital

More Information

• Responsible Party: Jin-Tae Kim, professor, Seoul National University Hospital
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01616771
• Other Study ID Numbers: H-1111-037-385
• First Posted: June 12, 2012
• Results First Posted: November 2, 2014
• Last Update Posted: November 4, 2014
• Last Verified: November 2014

Keywords provided by Jin-Tae Kim, Seoul National University Hospital:

laryngoscopes