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 | Â |
(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) |