Key result
King Vision video laryngoscope provided significantly faster laryngoscopy and intubation times compared to Airtraq, with similar success rates and Cormack-Lehane grading.
Why the study?
Innovations such as King Vision and Airtraq video laryngoscopes offer enhanced glottis visualization compared to direct laryngoscopy, but their relative efficiency needed comparative assessment.
Does the King Vision video laryngoscope improve intubation efficiency compared to the Airtraq video laryngoscope in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia?
Does the King Vision video laryngoscope improve intubation efficiency compared to the Airtraq video laryngoscope in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia?
The King Vision video laryngoscope provides faster laryngoscopy and intubation times compared to the Airtraq device, which may be beneficial for urgent airway management.
Video laryngoscopes may aid visualization; leaves open whether they improve intubation outcomes in practice.
Background: In the dynamic medical landscape, anesthesiology plays a pivotal role in ensuring patient safety and comfort during surgeries. Central to this is endotracheal intubation, a critical procedure for securing the airway under anesthesia. Innovations such as King Vision and Airtraq video laryngoscopes offer enhanced glottis visualization and Cormack Lehane scores compared to direct laryngoscopy, with a shorter learning curve. This study aims to assess King Vision and Airtraq’s efficiency in terms of laryngoscopy time, Cormack and Lehane grading, and single-attempt success rate, the number of intubation attempts and endotracheal intubation duration. Methodology: We conducted a study involving 90 patients, aged 20–40 years, undergoing elective surgeries in Departments of General Surgery, ENT, and Gynecology under General Anesthesia. They were divided into two groups, Group K (King Vision) and Group A (Airtraq). Anesthesiologists with at least 40 prior intubations using both devices performed intubations. Preoperative assessments included Alprazolam and Ranitidine, fasting for 8 h, and vital sign monitoring. Anesthesia induction comprised fentanyl, propofol, and succinylcholine, with Macintosh laryngoscopy as a backup. Anesthesia maintenance included nitrous oxide, oxygen, isoflurane, and rocuronium, while parameters were diligently recorded. Results: Our results indicate comparable age and gender distributions between Airtraq and King Vision groups, as well as no differences in Mallampati grading. Kings Vision showed significantly faster laryngoscopy and quicker intubation. Most patients required only one intubation attempt in both groups. Cormack and Lehane grading was unaffected by device choice. Conclusion: Our study shows that both Airtraq and King Vision perform similarly across patient characteristics, but King Vision offers faster laryngoscopy and intubation times, ideal for urgent airway management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khati et al. (2024) studied Elective surgeries under general anesthesia (n=90). King Vision video laryngoscope vs. Airtraq video laryngoscope was evaluated on Laryngoscopy time, Cormack and Lehane grading, single-attempt success rate, number of intubation attempts, and endotracheal intubation duration. King Vision video laryngoscope provided significantly faster laryngoscopy and intubation times compared to Airtraq, with similar success rates and Cormack-Lehane grading.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: