Comparison Between Macintosh Laryngoscope and McGrath Video Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation in Neurosurgical Patients

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

This study was done on sixty patients of ASA 1 and 2, undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. The patients allocated in two groups of 30 patients each. Patients selected were allocated to two groups and without risk factors. laryngoscopy group (group 1) patients were intubated through direct laryngoscope. Video laryngoscopy group (group 2) patients were intubated through McGrath VLS. The distribution of patients according to age, sex and weight was (p>.001) in both the two groups. The changes in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation were not (p>.001) between the two groups after intubation at different time intervals. The number of attempts and intubation was found to be significantly higher in McGrath VLS as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. The increase in postoperative sore throat and hoarseness after 6 and 24 hrs following operation was found to be significant in group 1 compared group 2. from our study, we conclude that the use of McGrath video laryngoscope has no advantage over direct laryngoscopy attenuating the cardiovascular responses attributed to tracheal intubation in patients with normal airway. It is also associated greater number of attempts and longer intubation time. However, with the use of stylet, number of attempts can be , although the use of stylet has its own complications. has lesser incidence of post-operative sore throat and hoarseness as compared to Macintosh laryngoscopy.