medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2025, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2025; 23 (6)

Speed of intubation using On Focus versus King Vision video laryngoscopes in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery

Lozano SOD, Pinto SME, Carrero SH

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 514-520
PDF size: 322.78 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: videolaryngoscopy revolutionized airway management. However, differences exist in design and clinical performance. Objective: compare the speed of intubation using On Focus vs King Vision video laryngoscopes in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. Material y methods: a controlled, observational, analytical, prospective, cross-sectional clinical trial was conducted in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery under general anesthesia at the Hospital Angeles Clínica Londres, from August to October 2023. Once the informed consent was signed, the patients were randomly assigned to groups F (On Focus) or K (King Vision). The total intubation time, need for subsequent laryngoscopies, and presence of airway injury were compared. For the univariate analysis, measures of central tendency, frequencies, and proportions were used; for the inferential analysis, the χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied, considering 95%CI and p value p ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance. Results: the Mann-Whitney U test did not show any dependence between the use of the two types of video laryngoscope and the total intubation time (p = 0.09). Conclusion: there are no differences in the speed of intubation with the use of the On Focus or King Vision video laryngoscopes in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.


REFERENCES

  1. Hansel J, Rogers AM, Lewis SR, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 4 (4): CD011136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3.

  2. Saul SA, Ward PA, McNarry AF. Airway management: The current role of videolaryngoscopy. J Pers Med. 2023; 13 (9): 1327.

  3. Ramesh K, Srinivasan G, Bidkar PU. Comparison of tracheal intubation using King Vision (non-channeled blade) and Tuoren video laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization: a randomized clinical trial. Cureus. 2023; 15 (8): e43471. doi: 10.7759/cureus.43471.

  4. Zaki HA, Shaban E, Elgassim M, Fayed M, Basharat K, Elnabawy W et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealing the future of airway management: video laryngoscopy vs. Macintosh laryngoscopy for enhanced clinical outcomes. Cureus. 2023; 15 (12): e50648. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50648.

  5. Kauffman MB, Liu J, Urman RD, Fields KG, Yao D. A comparison of difficult intubation documentation practices with existing guidelines in the advent of video laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesth. 2020; 65: 109807. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109807.

  6. Nalubola S, Jin E, Drugge ED, Weber G, Abramowicz AE. Video versus direct laryngoscopy in novice intubators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2022; 14 (9): e29578. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29578.

  7. Gayathri B, Mani K, Vishak M, John J, Srinivasan RG, Mirunalini G. Factors influencing the time of intubation using C-MAC D-Blade® video laryngoscope: an observational cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2023; 15 (1): e34050. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34050.

  8. Zhang J, Jiang W, Urdaneta F. Economic analysis of the use of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the surgical setting. J Comp Eff Res. 2021; 10 (10): 831-844. doi: 10.2217/cer-2021-0068.

  9. Bakshi SG, Singh P, Bhosale S. Role of video-based learning on competency level of direct laryngoscopic skills of novice anaesthesiologists – A randomised clinical trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2022; 66 (10): 712-718. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_668_21.

  10. Russotto V, Lascarrou JB, Tassistro E, Parotto M, Antolini L, Bauer P et al. Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients: subanalysis of the INTUBE study. Br J Anaesth. 2023; 131 (3): 607-616. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.022.

  11. Intecmed. OnFocus® Lite [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 17]. Available in: https://www.intecmed.com/onfocus

  12. Focus products. Video Laryngoscope [Internet]. 2023. Available in: https://www.focusproducts.co.za/products/layrngoscope/

  13. Ambu Global. King Vision® Video Laryngoscope [Internet]. 2023. Available in: https://www.ambuusa.com/airway-management-and-anaesthesia/video-laryngoscopes/product/king-vision-video-laryngoscope

  14. Shah A, Patwa A, Burra V, Shah D, Gandhi B. Comparison of channelled blade with non-channelled Blade of King VisionTM videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation: A randomised, controlled, multicentric study. Airway [Internet]. 2019; 2 (1): 10-16. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/arwy.arwy_8_19

  15. Avula RR, Vemuri NN, Tallapragada R. A prospective crossover study evaluating the efficacy of King Vision video laryngoscope in patients requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Anesth Essays Res. 2019; 13 (1): 36-39. doi: 10.4103/aer.AER_165_18.

  16. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005; 52 (2): 191-198. doi: 10.1007/BF03027728.

  17. Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K, Reeve CS et al. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64 (11): 1207-1210. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06061.x.

  18. O'Loughlin EJ, Swann AD, English JD, Ramadas R. Accuracy, intra- and inter-rater reliability of three scoring systems for the glottic view at videolaryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2017; 72 (7): 835-839. doi: 10.1111/anae.13837.

  19. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006; 163 (6): 493-501. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj069.

  20. Pandis N. Sources of bias in clinical trials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140 (4): 595-596. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.013.

  21. Campos-Nonato I, Oviedo-Solís C, Vargas-Meza J, Ramírez-Villalobos D, Medina-García C, Gómez-Álvarez E et al. Prevalencia, tratamiento y control de la hipertensión arterial en adultos mexicanos: resultados de la Ensanut 2022. Salud Publica Mex. 2023; 65 (Supl 1): s169-s180.

  22. Hurwitz EE, Simon M, Vinta SR, Zehm CF, Shabot SM, Minhajuddin A et al. Adding examples to the ASA-physical status classification improves correct assignment to patients. Anesthesiology. 2017; 126 (4): 614-622. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001541.

  23. De Cassai A, Boscolo A, Tonetti T, Ban I, Ori C. Assignment of ASA-physical status relates to anesthesiologists' experience: a survey-based national-study. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019; 72 (1): 53-59. doi: 10.4097/kja.d.18.00224.

  24. Sierra-Parrales K, Miñaca-Rea D. Comparación de las escalas de Mallampati y Cormack-Lehane para predecir intubación difícil en pacientes operados de emergencia bajo anestesia general. Cambios Rev Méd. 2018; 18 (1): 30-35.

  25. Domínguez-Pérez M, González-Dzib RDS. Correlación entre el índice predictivo de intubación difícil y el Cormack. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2023; 61 (1): 15-20.

  26. Karalapillai D, Darvall J, Mandeville J, Ellard L, Graham J, Weinberg L. A review of video laryngoscopes relevant to the intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2014; 18 (7): 442-452. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.136073.

  27. Al-Ghamdi AA, El Tahan MR, Khidr AM. Comparison of the Macintosh, GlideScope®, Airtraq®, and King Vision™ laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016; 82 (12): 1278-1287.

  28. Manirajan M, Bidkar PU, Sivakumar RK, Lata S, Srinivasan G, Jha AK. Comparison of paediatric King Vision™ videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for elective tracheal intubation in children of age less than 1 year: A randomised clinical trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2020; 64 (11): 943-948. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_154_20.

  29. Alvis BD, Hester D, Watson D, Higgins M, St Jacques P. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016; 82 (1): 30-35.

  30. Abdelgadir IS, Phillips RS, Singh D, Moncreiff MP, Lumsden JL. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 5 (5): CD011413. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011413.pub2.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com