A randomised trial comparing the CEL-100 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade for insertion of double-lumen tubes
Lin W et al. – The authors conclude that the CEL–100 videolaryngoscope is superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope blade for double–lumen tube insertion.Methods
- The authors performed a randomised trial comparing the CEL–100 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade in 170 patients undergoing double–lumen tube placement for thoracic surgery.
- Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade, use of the CEL–100 resulted in significantly more patients with a Cormack and Lehane Grade–1 laryngeal view (90.4% vs 61.0%, p<0.001), a higher rate of successful intubation on the first attempt (92.8% vs 79.3%, p=0.012), a lower median (IQR [range]) intubation difficulty score (0(0–0[0–60]) vs 15(0–30 [0–80]), p<0.001), a higher incidence of correct positioning of the tube (90.3% vs 79.2%, p=0.041) and significantly fewer patients requiring external laryngeal pressure (19.3% vs 32.9%, p=0.046).
- Median (IQR [range]) time to successful intubation was 45(38–55[22–132]) s with the CEL–100 compared with 51(40–61[30–160]s using the Macintosh laryngoscope blade.