Retire the Conventional Laryngoscope?

Video laryngoscopy is useful when direct laryngoscopy fails. However, should video laryngoscopy replace conventional laryngoscopy? We sought evidence updating previous systematic reviews examining whether video laryngoscopy should replace direct laryngoscopy for routine adult intubations performed by experienced anesthesia providers in the operating room. Six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials compared the success of various video laryngoscopes to Macintosh laryngoscopes. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate. The secondary outcomes were time to successful intubation and oropharyngeal trauma occurrence. Overall, the evidence suggests there is no difference between video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in first-pass endotracheal success rate, time to tracheal intubation, and occurrence of oropharyngeal trauma for adult intubations performed in the operating room. However, an important consideration in interpreting the evidence is that the studies were not uniformly powered to measure the outcomes of interest. Anesthesia providers should consider continuing the use of conventional laryngoscopy for adults not suspected of being difficult to intubate however, a video laryngoscope should be readily available. Future large-scale studies examining the use of the video laryngoscope for all adult intubations are needed.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Name: Christopher Bailey, DNAP, CRNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. Name: Rhys Dela Cruz, DNAP, CRNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. Name: Shari Burns, EdD, CRNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None. Name: Paul N. Austin, PhD, CRNA Contribution: This author made significant contributions to the conception, synthesis, writing, and final editing and approval of the manuscript to justify inclusion as an author. Disclosures: None.