Skip to main content

Table 1 Data extraction

From: A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation

1st Author

Quality

Device

Method

N device

Predicted easy (MP 1-2)

Predicted difficult (MP 3-4)

Difficult laryngoscopy (C&L 3-4 on DL)

Achievement of C&L I view

Time to intubation 95% CI or IQR

Success% 1st attempt Overall (OA)

Maharaj (2006) [13]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 60 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL

30

30

0

No data

95%

Mean 12.2

100% 1st

Mac DL 70%

(95% CI 9.1 to 15.3)

100% OA

Maharaj (2007) [14]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 40 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

20

20

0

No data

95%

Mean 13.2

No data

Mac DL 30%

(95% CI 10.6 to 15.7)

Maharaj (2007) [15]

na

Airtraq

Observational, Case series, 7 subjects, failed Mac DL

7

0

7

4 C&L 4

100%

Mean 14

No data

Mac DL 0%

(95% CI 8.5 to 18.9)

Ndoko (2007) [16]

(-)

Airtraq

Randomized, 70 subjects, Mac DL v Airtraq, risk of difficulty

35

0

35

No data

No data

Mean 30

100% OA

(95% CI 21.4 to 35.8)

Arslan (2009) [17]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 86 subjects, Airtraq v CTrach, Cervical spine limitation (collar)

43

42

1

No data

No data

Mean 25.6

No data

(95% CI 21.4 to 29.8)

Dhonneur (2009) [18]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 318 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL v CTrach, obese

106

82

24

No data

94%

Mean 29

No data

Mac DL 51%

(95% CI 26.7 to 31.3)

Lange (2009) [19]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 60 subjects, Mac DL then Airtraq v GlideScope

30

26

4

4 C&L 3-4

90%

Mean 19.7

No data

Mac DL 57%

(95% CI to 15.7 to 23.8)

Malin (2009) [20]

na

Airtraq

Observational, Case series, 47 subjects, failed Mac DL

47

0

47

47 C&L 2b-4

85%

No data

95% 1st

Mac DL 0%

100%OA

Turkstra (2009) [21]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, cross-over,24 subjects, Airtraq v Mac, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

24

24

0

2

90%

Median 8.8

100% 1st

Mac DL 20%

(IQR 6.7 to 10.6)

100% OA

Chalkeidis (2010) [22]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 63 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL

35

25

10

No data

No data

Mean 30

80% OA

(95% CI 27.1 to 32.9)

Koh (2010) [23]

(+)

Airtraq

Randomized, 50 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (collar)

25

20

5

No data

No data

Mean 50

100% OA

(95% CI to 36.2 to 63.8)

Halligan (2003) [24]

na

Bonfils

Observational, Case series, 60 subjects

60

58

2

No data

No data

Median 33

98% OA

(IQR 24 to 50)

Wong (2003) [25]

na

Bonfils

Observational, Case series, 36 subjects

36

No data

No data

No data

No data

Median 80

86% OA

(No IQR report)

Bein (2004) [26]

(-)

Bonfils

Randomized, 80 subjects, Bonfils v ILMA, Risk of difficulty

40

12

28

No data

No data

Median 40

98% 1st

(IQR 23 to 77)

100% OA

Bein (2004) [27]

na

Bonfils

Observational, Case series, 25 subjects, failed Mac DL

25

0

No data

25

No data

Median 48

No data

(IQR 30 to 80)

Wahlen (2004) [28]

(-)

Bonfils

Randomized, 48 subjects, Bonfils v Mac DL v Bullard v ILMA

12

12

0

No data

No data

Mean 52

92% OA

(95% CI 38.1 to 66.1)

Byhahn (2008) [29]

(+)

Bonfils

Randomized, 76 subjects, Bonfils v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (collar)

38

38

0

Mac group 17

82%

Mean 64

71% 1st

Mac DL 5%

(95% CI 56.1 to 71.9)

82% OA

Corbanese (2009) [30]

na

Bonfils

Observational, Case series, 100 subjects

100

100

0

No data

No data

Median 30

89% 1st

(IQR 25 to 40)

98% OA

Corso (2010) [31]

na

Bonfils

Observational, Case series, 10 subjects

10

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

MacQuarrie (1999)[32]

na

Bullard

Observational, Case series, 80 subjects, Cervical spine limitation (collar)

40 x 2 grps

28

No data

52

No data

MFIS group

89% 1st

Mean 41

98% OA

(95% CI 35.3 to 46.7)

ISETT group

Mean 45.4 (95% CI 39.4 to 51.4)

Shulman (2001) [33]

(-)

Bullard

Randomized, cross-over, 50 subjects, Bullard v FOI, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

25 x 2 grps

No data

No data

No data

No data

Standard Group: Mean 37

85% OA

(95% CI 26.2 to 47.8)

Cricoid Group

Mean 38 (95% CI 26.9 to 49.1)

Wahlen (2004) [28]

(+)

Bullard

Randomized, 48 subjects, Bullard v Mac v Bonfils v ILMA

12

12

0

No data

92%

Mean 16.1

92% 1st

Mac DL 33%

(95% CI 12.1 to 20)

92%OA

Nileshwar (2007) [34]

(+)

Bullard

Randomized, 62 subjects, Mac DL then Bullard v ILMA, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

31

19

No data

12

No data

Mean 84

86% 1st

(95% CI 66.4 to 101.6)

90% OA

Teoh (2010) [35]

(+)

C-MAC

Randomized, 400 subjects GlideScope v Pentax AWS v C-MAC v MacDL

100

85

15

No data

87%

Mean 31.9

93% 1st

(95% CI 28.4 to 35.4)

100% OA

Dhonneur (2006) [36]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 104 subjects, Mac DL v CTrach, obese

52

43

9

No data

75%

Mean 176

No data

(95% CI 166 to 186)

Goldman (2006) [37]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 328 subjects

328

No data

No data

No data

91%

No data

No data

Goldman (2006) [38]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 6 subjects

6

3

3

6

100%

No data

No data

Mac DL 0%

Liu (2006) [39]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 100 subjects

100

84

26

9

28%

Median 166

No data

Mac DL 59%

(IQR 114 to 233)

Timmerman (2006) [40]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 10 subjects

10

No data

No data

No data

30%

No data

No data

Timmerman (2006) [41]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 60 subjects

60

No data

No data

3

55%

No data

No data

Cattano (2007) [42]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 15 subjects, obese

15

No data

No data

No data

60%

No data

No data

Dhonneur (2007) [43]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 120 subjects, CTrach v MacDL

60

No data

No data

No data

93%

Mean 119

No data

(95% CI 107.6 to 130.4)

Ng (2007) [44]

(-)

CTrach

Randomized trial, 106 subjects, CTrach v GlideScope

54

54

0

No data

85%

Mean 73

No data

(95% CI 63.2 to 82.8)

Liu (2008) [45]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 271 subjects, CTrach v ILMA (Fastrach)

134

118

16

13

93%

Median 116

93% 1st

Mac DL 59%

(IQR 82 to 156)

100% OA

Nickel (2008) [46]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 16 subjects

16

No data

No data

No data

44%

No data

No data

Arslan (2009) [17]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 86 subjects, Airtraq v CTrach, Cervical spine limitation (collar)

43

42

1

No data

No data

Mean 66.3

93% 1st

(95% CI 57.3 to 75.3)

100% OA

Dhonneur (2009) [18]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 318 subjects, Airtraq v Mac DL v CTrach, obese

106

78

28

No data

97%

Mean 109

100% OA

Mac DL 51%,

(95% CI 103.9 to 114.1)

Liu (2009) [47]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 48 subjects

48

18

30

26

in 96%

No data

No data

Mac DL 0%

Malik (2009) [48]

(+)

CTrach

Randomized, 90 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac DL v CTrach, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

30

30

0

No data

67%

Median 46

84% 1st

Mac DL 20%

(IQR 38 to 107)

90% OA

Ng (2009) [49]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 50 subjects, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

50

45

5

11

98%

No data

No data

Mac DL 44%

Swadia (2009) [50]

na

CTrach

Observational, Case series, 20 subjects

20

20

0

No data

60%

Mean 347.8

No data

(95% CI 342.8 to 352.8)

Agro (2003) [4]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 15 subjects, C spine limitation (collar)

15

No data

No data

10

33%

Mean 38

No data

Mac DL 0%

(no SD report)

Cooper (2005) [51]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 728 subjects

728

579

148

34/133

86%

No data

96% OA

Mac DL 49%

Doyle (2005) [52]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 747 subjects

747

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

100 % OA

Hsiao (2005) [53]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 103 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope

103

No data

No data

22

80%

No data

No data

Mac DL 52%

Lim (2005) [54]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 60 subjects, GlideScope v Mac DL, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

30

30

0

8 in Mac DL group

67%

Mean 41.8

86% 1st

Mac DL 13%

(95% CI 34.2 to 49.4)

94% OA

Rai (2005) [55]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 50 subjects

50

No data

No data

1

88%

Median 40

No data

Mac DL 44%

(IQR 30 to 55)

Sun (2005) [56]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL then Mac v GlideScope

100

88

12

15

75%

Mean 46

94% 1st

Mac DL 59%

(95% CI 42 to 49)

99% OA

Turkstra (2005) [57]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, cross-over, 36 subjects, Mac DL and GlideScope, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

18

16

2

No data

No data

Mean 27

No data

(95% CI 21.0 to 33.0)

Ng (2007) [44]

(-)

GlideScope

Randomized, 106 subjects, CTrach v GlideScope

52

52

0

No data

100 %

Mean 43

No data

(95% CI 36.9 to 49.1)

Xue (2007) [58]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 91 subjects

91

79

12

19/27

74%

Mean 38

97% 1st

Mac DL 11%

(95% CI 35.7 to 40.3)

100% OA

Malik (2008) [59]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 120 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v Mac DL v Truview, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

30

30

0

No data

70%

Mean 18.9

No data

Mac DL 20%

(95% CI 16.7 to 21.9)

Tremblay (2008) [60]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 400 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope

400

347

53

26

90%

Mean 21

84% 1st

Mac DL 67%

(95% CI 19.6 to 22.4)

99% OA

Robitaille (2008) [61]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, cross over, 20 subjects, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

20

No data

No data

1

50%

No data

No data

Mac DL 0%

Bathory (2009) [62]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 50 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

50

48

2

50

8%

Median 50

No data

Mac DL 0%

(IQR 41-63 s)

Stroumpoulis [63] (2009)

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 112 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope,

112

70

42

41

61%

No data

90% 1st

Mac DL 38%

98% OA

Lange (2009) [19]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 60 subjects, Mac DL then Airtraq v GlideScope

30

27

3

5

90%

Mean 17.3

97% 1st

Mac DL 63%

(95% CI 14.8 to 19.8)

100% OA

Liu (2009) [64]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 70 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS), cervical spine limitation (MILS)

35

23

12

20

40%

Mean 71.9

No data

Mac DL 20%

(95% CI 55.5 to 88.3)

Maassen (2009) [65]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese

50

37

13

17

No data

Mean 33

No data

(95% CI 27.9 to 38.1)

Malik (2009) [66]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 75 subjects,Pentax AWS v GlideScope v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty

25

0

25

No data

88%

Median 17

88 % 1st

(IQR 12 to 21)

96% OA

Nouruzi-Sedeh (2009) [67]

(-)

GlideScope

Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL v GlideScope, untrained operators

100

No data

No data

No data

66%

Mean 63

93% 1st

Mac DL 32%

(95% CI 57.0 to 68.9)

100% OA

Teoh (2009) [68]

(-)

GlideScope

Randomized, 140 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS

70

62

8

No data

81%

Median 27.8

No data

(IQR 22 to 36)

Turkstra (2009) [69]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 80 subjects, GlideScope alone (comparing stylets)

79

67

12

No data

73%

Median 37

92% 1st

96% OA

Van Zundert (2009)[70]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath

150

134

16

No data

No data

Mean 34

No data

(95% CI 30.8 to 37.2)

Hirabayashi (2010) [71]

(-)

GlideScope

Randomized, 200 subjects, GlideScope v Mac DL

100

No data

No data

No data

No data

Mean 64

94% 1st

(95% CI 57.5 to 70.5)

100% OA

Serocki (2010) [72]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, cross-over, 120 subjects GlideScope v V-MAC v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty

120

68

52

36

36%

Median 33

91% 1st

Mac DL 0%

(IQR 18 to 38)

100% OA

Siu (2010) [73]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 742 subjects

742

408

256

78

62%

No data

No data

Teoh (2010) [35]

(+)

GlideScope

Randomized, 400 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v CMAC v Mac DL

100

71

29

No data

78%

Mean 31

91% 1st

(95% CI 28.0 to 34.0)

100% OA

Aziz (2011) [74]

na

GlideScope

Observational, Case series, 2004 subjects

2004

1329

675

239 failed DL

No data

No data

No data

Shippey (2007) [75]

na

McGrath

Observational, Case series, 75 subjects

75

63

11

1

No data

Median 25

93% 1st

(IQR 18.5 to 34.4)

98% OA

O’Leary (2008) [76]

na

McGrath

Observational, Case series, 30 subjects, failed DL

30

No data

No data

12

77%

No data

No data

Mac DL 3%

Maassen (2009) [65]

(+)

McGrath

Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese

50

38

12

14

No data

Mean 41

8% 1st

(95% CI 33.9 to 48.1)

100% OA

Van Zundert (2009)[70]

(+)

McGrath

Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath

150

133

17

No data

No data

Mean 38

83% OA

(95% CI 34.3 to 41.7)

Walker (2009) [77]

(+)

McGrath

Randomized, 120 subjects, McGrath v Mac DL

60

58

2

No data

No data

Median 47

95% 1st

(IQR 39 to 60)

100% OA

Hughes (2010) [78]

na

McGrath

Observational, Case series, 6 subjects

6

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

Noppens (2010) [79]

na

McGrath

Observational, Case series, 61 subjects, C&L 3-4 failed Mac DL

61

No data

No data

61 C&L 3-4

87%

No data

95% OA

Mac DL 0%

Asai (2008) [80]

na

Pentax AWS

Observational, Case series, 100 subjects

100

100

0

No data

No data

Median 35

96% 1st, 99%OA

(No IQR report)

Enomoto (2008) [81]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, cross-over, 203 subjects, Mac DL v Pentax AWS, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

203

194

9

22

Mac DL 61%

Mean 54

 

(95% CI 52.1 to 55.9)

Hirabayashi (2008) [82]

na

Pentax AWS

Observational, Case series, 405 subjects

405

No data

No data

16

No data

Mean 42

95% 1st

(95% CI 3.8 to 81)

100%OA

Malik (2008) [59]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 120 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac v GS v Truview, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

30

30

0

No data

97%

Mean 16.7

No data

Mac DL 20%

(95% CI 14 to 19.4)

Suzuki (2008) [83]

na

Pentax AWS

Observational, Case series, 320 subjects

320

265

55

46

99%

Mean 20.1

96% 1st

Mac DL 55%

(95% CI 19 to 21.2)

100% OA

Asai (2009) [84]

na

Pentax AWS

Observational, Case series, 270 subjects, difficult Mac DLs

270

179

91

256

96%

No data

No data

Mac DL 0%

Hirabayashi (2009) [85]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 520 subjects, Mac DL v Pentax AWS

264

No data

No data

No data

No data

Mean 44

96% 1st

(95% CI 41.7 to 46.2)

100% OA

Liu (2009) [64]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 70 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope, Cervical spine limitation (MILS)

35

25

10

19

97%

Mean 34.2

100% OA

Mac DL 19%

(95% CI 25.6 to 42.8)

Malik (2009) [48]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 90 subjects, Pentax AWS v Mac v CTrach, cervical spine limitation (MILS)

30

30

0

No data

100%

Median 10

93% 1st

Mac DL 20%

(IQR 8 to 15)

100%OA

Malik (2009) [66]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 75 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope v Mac, Risk of difficulty

25

1

24

No data

100%

Median 15

72 % 1st

(IQR 8 to 31)

100% OA

Teoh (2009) [68]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 140 subjects, Pentax AWS v GlideScope

70

60

10

No data

98%

Median 19

87% 1st

(IQR 14 to 4.5)

100 OA

Teoh (2010) [35]

(+)

Pentax AWS

Randomized, 400 subjects, GlideScope v Pentax AWS v C-MAC v Mac DL

100

83

17

No data

97%

Mean 20.6

95% 1st

(95% CI 18.3 to 22.9)

100% OA

Kaplan (2006) [86]

na

V-MAC

Observational, Case series, 865 subjects, Mac DL then V-MAC

865

No data

No data

123

56%

No data

No data

Mac DL 36%

Cavus (2009) [87]

na

C-MAC

Observational, Case series, 60 subjects

60

42

18

No data

No data

Median 16

87% 1st

(IQR 6 to 58)

100% OA

Jungbauer (2009) [88]

(+)

V-MAC

Randomized, 200 subjects, Mac DL v V-MAC, at risk of difficulty

100

1

99

36

45%

Mean 40

No data

Mac DL 23%

(95% CI 33.9 to 46.1)

Maassen (2009) [65]

(+)

V-MAC

Randomized, 150 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath, Obese

50

37

13

14

No data

Mean 17

No data

(95% CI 15 to 19)

Van Zundert (2009)[70]

(+)

V-MAC

Randomized, 450 subjects, Mac DL then GlideScope v V-MAC v McGrath

150

132

18

No data

No data

Mean 18

No data

(95% CI 16.1 to 19.9)

Meininger (2010) [89]

na

C-MAC

Observational, Case series, 94 subjects Mac DL then C-MAC

94

No data

No data

18

43%

No data

No data

Mac DL 35%

Serocki (2010) [72]

(++)

V-MAC

Randomized, cross-over, 120 subjects GlideScope v V-MAC v Mac DL, Risk of difficulty

120

68

52

36

31%

Median 27

No data

Mac DL 0%

(IQR 17 to 94)

  1. (Refer to Table 4 for guide to quality assessment grading).