Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
225 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2013-03-06
2015-12-17
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
King Vision Video Laryngoscope Versus Glidescope Video Laryngoscope
NCT02324465
Videolaryngoscopes for Double Lumen Tube Intubations in Simulated Easy and Difficult Airway
NCT02640196
King Vision Video Laryngoscope aBlade vs. Direct Laryngoscopy in Children
NCT02384564
King Vision Video Laryngoscope Ambu (aBlade) System for Use in Children
NCT02841189
KingVision Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy - Equivalence Trial
NCT02590237
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Glidescope AVL
Video laryngoscopes
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.
King Vision Channeled VL
Video laryngoscopes
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.
King Vision Non-Channeled (Standard) VL
Video laryngoscopes
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Video laryngoscopes
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Mallampati III-IV
* Neck circumference \> 43cm
* Reduced mouth opening (\< 4cm) or 3 Finger breath's (patient's own)
* Thyromental distance \< 6cm
Exclusion Criteria
* Neck circumference \< 43cm
* Documented 'easy' intubation
* Previous history of failed intubation and failed bag-mask ventilation
* Under 18 years of age
* ASA IV
* Known unstable cervical spine injury
* Presentation for an emergency surgical procedure
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
King Systems Corporation
INDUSTRY
The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Carin A. Hagberg
Chief Academic Officer and Division Head of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Carin A Hagberg, MD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Hagberg CA, Iannucci D, Goodrich A. A comparison of the glottic view obtained with the Macintosh Video Laryngoscope in anesthetized, paralyzed, apneic patients. Direct view vs video monitor. Anesthesiology 2003; 103: A1501.
Hagberg C, Matuszczak M, Ellis S, et al. A randomized comparison of laryngoscopy techniques using the video laryngoscope and the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope in obese patients. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: A1420.
Hagberg C, Vogt-Harenkamp C, Bogomolny Y, et al. A comparison of laryngoscopy techniques using the video laryngoscope and the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope in potentially difficult to intubate patients. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: S-212.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
HSC-MS-13-0024
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.