Non-inferiority Trial Comparing visionPRO to Glidescope Video Laryngoscopes
NCT ID: NCT06676462
Last Updated: 2024-11-06
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
100 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-01-01
Study Completion Date
2027-01-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Indirect video laryngoscope tracheal intubation with the GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) has become a well-established technique in emergency and clinical anaesthesia, offering first-pass intubation success rates comparable to those achieved with direct laryngoscopy. Different video laryngoscopes vary significantly in design, including blade shape, mobility, and camera operation, which can affect patient outcomes. Two video laryngoscopes with hyperangulated blades include the GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) and the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany). The Glidescope comprises an external monitor connected to a medical-grade plastic handle which is compatible with reusable and disposable blades. The newer visionPro comprises a reusable anodized aluminum integrated monitor that is attached to the camera/handle which is compatible with disposable blades. The hyperangulated blade of the VisionPro is a unique combination of previously designed laryngoscope blades meant to increase performance. The introduction of this new hyperangulated blade design in the VisionPro raises the need to compare its performance against the established GlideScope.
The aim of this pilot study is to generate initial data to evaluate whether the use of the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) provides a non-inferior first-pass success rate compared with the GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) in surgical patients with an expected normal airway undergoing general anaesthesia The investigators hypothesize that tracheal intubation using the HEINE visionPRO will achieve a similar frequency of failed intubation and airway complications. This study plans to recruit 100 patients.
The aim of this pilot study is to generate initial data to evaluate whether the use of the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) provides a non-inferior first-pass success rate compared with the GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) in surgical patients with an expected normal airway undergoing general anaesthesia The investigators hypothesize that tracheal intubation using the HEINE visionPRO will achieve a similar frequency of failed intubation and airway complications. This study plans to recruit 100 patients.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison of GlideScope Specific Stylet to Malleable Stylet for GlideScope Intubation
NCT00434720
Intubation, Endotracheal
COMPLETED
NA
The Rate of Successful Intubation and the Required Time for Intubation, Using Vie Scope and Macintosh Laryngoscope Will be Compared, in Order to Evaluate the Efficacy of Vie Scope in Comparison With Macintosh in Expected Easy Airways.
NCT06149338
Laryngoscopy
COMPLETED
NA
Use of a Low-cost Video Laryngoscope on Manikin
NCT06176677
Airway Management
COMPLETED
The Videolaryngoscopy Versus Direct Laringoscopy for Residents Intubation Study
NCT06842082
Intubation Intratracheal
Airway Management
RECRUITING
NA
Comparison of the Videolaryngoscopes With Manual In-line Stabilization
NCT02647606
Oral Surgery
Maxillofacial Surgery
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
This trial is a single-centre, pilot, patient-blinded, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.
Patients who decide to participate in this study will have their surgery and follow up care proceed according to standard of care. Video laryngoscopy is standard of care for this patient population at LHSC. Once eligibility is confirmed and informed, written consent has been obtained, participants be randomized to one of two study groups:
1. Laryngoscopy performed using the Glidescope device (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA)
2. Laryngoscopy performed using the visionPRO device (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany)
Surgery, anesthetic management, and intubation protocol will proceed according to standard of care.
(A) All patients are observed for ECG, oxygen saturation (SpO2), and non-invasive blood pressure. Pre-oxygenation is carried out by the provider based on patient characteristics and standard clinical procedures (EtO2 \> 80%).
(B) After adequate pre-oxygenation, anaesthesia is initiated using a combination of fentanyl (0.1 - 0.15 µg.kg-1) / sufentanil (0.2 - 0.5 µg.kg-1), and propofol (2 - 3 mg.kg-1), with the choice of drugs and dosages tailored to the specific needs of the patient. Maintenance is achieved either through propofol infusion (TIVA) or inhaled anaesthetics. The selection of a neuromuscular blocking agent is based on the surgery's duration, the need for perioperative neurological monitoring, and the absence of allergies and organ failures. The agents and their dosages used are:
1. Rocuronium (0.5 - 1.2 mg.kg-1); and
2. Succinylcholine (1 - 2 mg.kg-1).
The train-of-four (TOF) method is employed by the study nurse for continuous quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission. Complete muscle relaxation is confirmed by the absence of tactile and measured twitches in response to maximal TOF stimulation of the ulnar nerve at the adductor pollicis. Study personnel were instructed on the importance of achieving adequate neuromuscular blockade.
(C) The laryngoscopy attempt starts with a TOF count of 0/4, using the device specified by randomization:
1. visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) or
2. GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA)
The provider aims to achieve the clearest view of the laryngeal structures. External laryngeal manipulations (ELM) may be employed to enhance the view of the glottis, aiming for a Cormack and Lehane grade I or II. The endotracheal tube size and blade size are chosen according to the hospital's standard operating procedures (blade size: #3 for average patients, #4 for taller patients; standard ET sizes: 7.0-7.5 ID for female patients and 7.5-8.0 ID for male patients). The method of glottic visualization and the size of the ET and blade are documented in the case report form (CRF).
(D) An intubation attempt is defined as the insertion and removal of the laryngoscope blade from the mouth, regardless of ET insertion success. A laryngoscopy attempt is considered successful if the tracheal tube is placed with a single blade insertion within 120 seconds and without manipulation of the laryngoscope by another provider. The following times periods until final ET placement are measured by a study nurse via a timer:
1. "Time to intubation": duration from the opening of the patient's mouth to the passage of the ET through the vocal cords.
2. "Time to view": the time from device insertion to visualization of the glottis;
3. "Time to ventilation": the time from device insertion into the mouth until confirmation of the first CO2 wave on the anaesthesia respirator.
If the first attempt fails, the provider makes a second attempt with the same device, with mask ventilation recommended between attempts. A maximum of two laryngoscopy attempts are allowed. After two attempts the clinician switches to a preferred technique and records the direct and/or screen view. If this preferred technique fails after two attempts, the clinician proceeds with a preferred rescue technique. The study protocol recommends this limit of two intubation attempts and alternative technique selection in line with clinical standards. If ELM techniques, such as BURP (specific pressure applied to the cricoid cartilage), are needed during laryngoscopy, they are documented in the CRF. Throughout the induction of anaesthesia, a study nurse not involved in patient care records the study parameters.
24 hours following surgery, the patient will be assessed for presence and severity of sore throat rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no sore throat and 3 meaning severe sore throat), hoarseness rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no complaint and 3 meaning severe hoarseness), and cough rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no cough and 3 meaning severe cough).
Patients who decide to participate in this study will have their surgery and follow up care proceed according to standard of care. Video laryngoscopy is standard of care for this patient population at LHSC. Once eligibility is confirmed and informed, written consent has been obtained, participants be randomized to one of two study groups:
1. Laryngoscopy performed using the Glidescope device (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA)
2. Laryngoscopy performed using the visionPRO device (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany)
Surgery, anesthetic management, and intubation protocol will proceed according to standard of care.
(A) All patients are observed for ECG, oxygen saturation (SpO2), and non-invasive blood pressure. Pre-oxygenation is carried out by the provider based on patient characteristics and standard clinical procedures (EtO2 \> 80%).
(B) After adequate pre-oxygenation, anaesthesia is initiated using a combination of fentanyl (0.1 - 0.15 µg.kg-1) / sufentanil (0.2 - 0.5 µg.kg-1), and propofol (2 - 3 mg.kg-1), with the choice of drugs and dosages tailored to the specific needs of the patient. Maintenance is achieved either through propofol infusion (TIVA) or inhaled anaesthetics. The selection of a neuromuscular blocking agent is based on the surgery's duration, the need for perioperative neurological monitoring, and the absence of allergies and organ failures. The agents and their dosages used are:
1. Rocuronium (0.5 - 1.2 mg.kg-1); and
2. Succinylcholine (1 - 2 mg.kg-1).
The train-of-four (TOF) method is employed by the study nurse for continuous quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission. Complete muscle relaxation is confirmed by the absence of tactile and measured twitches in response to maximal TOF stimulation of the ulnar nerve at the adductor pollicis. Study personnel were instructed on the importance of achieving adequate neuromuscular blockade.
(C) The laryngoscopy attempt starts with a TOF count of 0/4, using the device specified by randomization:
1. visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) or
2. GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA)
The provider aims to achieve the clearest view of the laryngeal structures. External laryngeal manipulations (ELM) may be employed to enhance the view of the glottis, aiming for a Cormack and Lehane grade I or II. The endotracheal tube size and blade size are chosen according to the hospital's standard operating procedures (blade size: #3 for average patients, #4 for taller patients; standard ET sizes: 7.0-7.5 ID for female patients and 7.5-8.0 ID for male patients). The method of glottic visualization and the size of the ET and blade are documented in the case report form (CRF).
(D) An intubation attempt is defined as the insertion and removal of the laryngoscope blade from the mouth, regardless of ET insertion success. A laryngoscopy attempt is considered successful if the tracheal tube is placed with a single blade insertion within 120 seconds and without manipulation of the laryngoscope by another provider. The following times periods until final ET placement are measured by a study nurse via a timer:
1. "Time to intubation": duration from the opening of the patient's mouth to the passage of the ET through the vocal cords.
2. "Time to view": the time from device insertion to visualization of the glottis;
3. "Time to ventilation": the time from device insertion into the mouth until confirmation of the first CO2 wave on the anaesthesia respirator.
If the first attempt fails, the provider makes a second attempt with the same device, with mask ventilation recommended between attempts. A maximum of two laryngoscopy attempts are allowed. After two attempts the clinician switches to a preferred technique and records the direct and/or screen view. If this preferred technique fails after two attempts, the clinician proceeds with a preferred rescue technique. The study protocol recommends this limit of two intubation attempts and alternative technique selection in line with clinical standards. If ELM techniques, such as BURP (specific pressure applied to the cricoid cartilage), are needed during laryngoscopy, they are documented in the CRF. Throughout the induction of anaesthesia, a study nurse not involved in patient care records the study parameters.
24 hours following surgery, the patient will be assessed for presence and severity of sore throat rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no sore throat and 3 meaning severe sore throat), hoarseness rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no complaint and 3 meaning severe hoarseness), and cough rated on a scale of 0-3 (0 meaning no cough and 3 meaning severe cough).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Intubation; Difficult or Failed
Intubation Complication
Video Laryngoscopy
Airway Management
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
OTHER
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Participants
Outcome Assessors
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Video laryngoscopy with visionPRO
Video laryngoscopy will be performed with the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany)
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Video laryngoscopy with visionPRO
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Video laryngoscopy to be performed using the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) during intubation.
Video laryngoscopy with Glidescope
Video laryngoscopy will be performed with the GlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA)
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Video laryngoscopy with Glidescope
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Video laryngoscopy to be performed using theGlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) during intubation.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Video laryngoscopy with visionPRO
Video laryngoscopy to be performed using the visionPRO (HEINE® Optotechnick, Gilching, Germany) during intubation.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Video laryngoscopy with Glidescope
Video laryngoscopy to be performed using theGlideScope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, USA) during intubation.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Having elective surgery with general anesthesia
* At least 18 years of age
* requiring mechanical ventilation via an oral endotracheal tube
* At least 18 years of age
* requiring mechanical ventilation via an oral endotracheal tube
Exclusion Criteria
* More than one predictor of an anticipated difficult airway (eg, body mass index (BMI) \>40 kg/m2, unanticipated difficult airway in the medical history (eg, Cormack \& Lehane (C\&L) ≥III), reduction of the atlanto-occipital joint extension \<35°, reduced thyromental distance \<6 cm or Mallampati class ≥III)
* Age \<18 years
* ASA class IV-VI
* Pregnant or breastfeeding
* Unable to provide informed written consent or under guardianship
* Urgent surgical intervention
* At high risk for aspiration
* Patients undergoing any neck and throat surgery.
* Age \<18 years
* ASA class IV-VI
* Pregnant or breastfeeding
* Unable to provide informed written consent or under guardianship
* Urgent surgical intervention
* At high risk for aspiration
* Patients undergoing any neck and throat surgery.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ruediger Noppens
Anesthesiologist, Associate Professor
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Ruediger Noppens
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Western University
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Kriege M, Noppens RR, Turkstra T, Payne S, Kunitz O, Tzanova I, Schmidtmann I; EMMA Trial Investigators Group. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of the McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope versus conventional laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2023 Jun;78(6):722-729. doi: 10.1111/anae.15985. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, Scalea TM. Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Aug;75(2):212-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, Fu RF, Dillman D, Brambrink AM. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology. 2011 Jan;114(1):34-41. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182023eb7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ruetzler K, Bustamante S, Schmidt MT, Almonacid-Cardenas F, Duncan A, Bauer A, Turan A, Skubas NJ, Sessler DI; Collaborative VLS Trial Group. Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation in the Operating Room: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024 Apr 16;331(15):1279-1286. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.0762.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Noppens RR, Mobus S, Heid F, Schmidtmann I, Werner C, Piepho T. Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2010 Jul;65(7):716-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06388.x. Epub 2010 Jun 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kaplan A, Goksu E, Yildiz G, Kilic T. Comparison of the C-MAC Videolaryngoscope and Rigid Fiberscope with Direct Laryngoscopy in Easy and Difficult Airway Scenarios: A Manikin Study. J Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;50(3):e107-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.06.070. Epub 2015 Dec 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Savoldelli GL, Schiffer E, Abegg C, Baeriswyl V, Clergue F, Waeber JL. Learning curves of the Glidescope, the McGrath and the Airtraq laryngoscopes: a manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009 Jul;26(7):554-8. doi: 10.1097/eja.0b013e3283269ff4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sakles JC, Javedani PP, Chase E, Garst-Orozco J, Guillen-Rodriguez JM, Stolz U. The use of a video laryngoscope by emergency medicine residents is associated with a reduction in esophageal intubations in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;22(6):700-7. doi: 10.1111/acem.12674. Epub 2015 May 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hasegawa K, Shigemitsu K, Hagiwara Y, Chiba T, Watase H, Brown CA 3rd, Brown DF; Japanese Emergency Medicine Research Alliance Investigators. Association between repeated intubation attempts and adverse events in emergency departments: an analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Dec;60(6):749-754.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.04.005. Epub 2012 Apr 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004 Aug;99(2):607-13, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122825.04923.15.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Law JA, Duggan LV, Asselin M, Baker P, Crosby E, Downey A, Hung OR, Jones PM, Lemay F, Noppens R, Parotto M, Preston R, Sowers N, Sparrow K, Turkstra TP, Wong DT, Kovacs G; Canadian Airway Focus Group. Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 1. Difficult airway management encountered in an unconscious patient. Can J Anaesth. 2021 Sep;68(9):1373-1404. doi: 10.1007/s12630-021-02007-0. Epub 2021 Jun 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Law JA, Duggan LV, Asselin M, Baker P, Crosby E, Downey A, Hung OR, Kovacs G, Lemay F, Noppens R, Parotto M, Preston R, Sowers N, Sparrow K, Turkstra TP, Wong DT, Jones PM; Canadian Airway Focus Group. Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the patient with an anticipated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth. 2021 Sep;68(9):1405-1436. doi: 10.1007/s12630-021-02008-z. Epub 2021 Jun 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hansel J, Rogers AM, Lewis SR, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 4;4(4):CD011136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hansel J, Rogers AM. Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the best videolaryngoscope of them all? Anaesthesia. 2022 Apr;77(4):493. doi: 10.1111/anae.15654. Epub 2021 Dec 26. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
de Carvalho CC, da Silva DM, Lemos VM, Dos Santos TGB, Agra IC, Pinto GM, Ramos IB, Costa YSC, Santos Neto JM. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct Macintosh laryngoscopy in tracheal intubation in adults: a ranking systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2022 Mar;77(3):326-338. doi: 10.1111/anae.15626. Epub 2021 Dec 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Wunsch VA, Kohl V, Breitfeld P, Bauer M, Sasu PB, Siebert HK, Dankert A, Stark M, Zollner C, Petzoldt M. Hyperangulated blades or direct epiglottis lifting to optimize glottis visualization in difficult Macintosh videolaryngoscopy: a non-inferiority analysis of a prospective observational study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Nov 30;10:1292056. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1292056. eCollection 2023.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kohl V, Wunsch VA, Muller MC, Sasu PB, Dohrmann T, Peters T, Tolkmitt J, Dankert A, Krause L, Zollner C, Petzoldt M. Hyperangulated vs. Macintosh videolaryngoscopy in adults with anticipated difficult airway management: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2024 Sep;79(9):957-966. doi: 10.1111/anae.16326. Epub 2024 May 24.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
de Carvalho CC. Hyperangulated vs. Macintosh videolaryngoscopes for efficacy of orotracheal intubation in adults: a pairwise meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Anaesthesia. 2022 Oct;77(10):1172-1174. doi: 10.1111/anae.15810. Epub 2022 Jul 21. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rai MR, Dering A, Verghese C. The Glidescope system: a clinical assessment of performance. Anaesthesia. 2005 Jan;60(1):60-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04013.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Fuller RG, Rossetto MA, Paulson MW, April MD, Ginde AA, Bebarta VS, Flarity KM, Keenan S, Schauer SG. Market Analysis of Video Laryngoscopy Equipment for the Role 1 Setting. Mil Med. 2023 Nov 3;188(11-12):e3482-e3487. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usad189.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK. The levering laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 1993 Jun;48(6):516-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb07075.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nandakumar KP, Bhalla AP, Pandey RK, Baidya DK, Subramaniam R, Kashyap L. Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, and Glidescope video laryngoscope for intubation in morbidly obese patients: Randomized controlled trial. Saudi J Anaesth. 2018 Jul-Sep;12(3):433-439. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_754_17.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nair SM, Menon GD, George M, Issac E, Bhaskaran R. Comparison of performance characteristics of C-MAC video, McCoy, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in elective cervical spine surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Oct-Dec;37(4):569-573. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_56_20. Epub 2022 Jan 6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lee SH, Lee YC, Lee JH, Choi SR, Lee SC, Lee JH, Chung CJ. The prophylactic effect of dexamethasone on postoperative sore throat in prone position surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016 Jun;69(3):255-61. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2016.69.3.255. Epub 2016 Jun 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Plaisance P, Lapandry C. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS): proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1997 Dec;87(6):1290-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199712000-00005.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hrobjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013 Jan 8;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kriege M, Alflen C, Tzanova I, Schmidtmann I, Piepho T, Noppens RR. Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 21;7(8):e016907. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016907.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Aziz MF, Abrons RO, Cattano D, Bayman EO, Swanson DE, Hagberg CA, Todd MM, Brambrink AM. First-Attempt Intubation Success of Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the C-MAC D-Blade Versus the GlideScope in a Mixed Provider and Diverse Patient Population. Anesth Analg. 2016 Mar;122(3):740-750. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001084.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ruetzler K, Imach S, Weiss M, Haas T, Schmidt AR. [Comparison of five video laryngoscopes and conventional direct laryngoscopy : Investigations on simple and simulated difficult airways on the intubation trainer]. Anaesthesist. 2015 Jul;64(7):513-9. doi: 10.1007/s00101-015-0051-5. Epub 2015 Jul 15. German.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Piepho T, Weinert K, Heid FM, Werner C, Noppens RR. Comparison of the McGrath(R) Series 5 and GlideScope(R) Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011 Jan 17;19(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Al-Ghamdi AA, El Tahan MR, Khidr AM. Comparison of the Macintosh, GlideScope(R), Airtraq(R), and King Vision laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 Dec;82(12):1278-1287. Epub 2016 Apr 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Maharaj CH, McDonnell JG, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of direct and indirect laryngoscopes and the ILMA in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2007 Nov;62(11):1161-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05216.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
El-Tahan MR, Al'ghamdi AA, Khidr AM, Gaarour IS. Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes for double-lumen tubes intubation in simulated easy and difficult airways: a randomized trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 Oct;82(10):1050-1058. Epub 2016 May 12.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
visionPRO vs. Glidescope
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
GlideScope Groove vs. Standard GlideScope: A Non-inferiority Study
NCT01489605
WITHDRAWN
NA
Laryngoscope Versus CMAC for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Emergent Airway Management
NCT01710891
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Comparison of Simultaneous Endotracheal Tube Insertion With GlideScope Use
NCT02787629
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of the VividTrac® Videolaryngoscope to Direct Laryngoscopy in Adults Under Manual Inline Stabilization
NCT02479672
WITHDRAWN
NA
Comparison of GlideScope Videolaryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasal Intubation
NCT00400972
COMPLETED
NA
GlideScope Groove Versus Macintosh Blade for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Tube Intubation
NCT01488695
WITHDRAWN
NA
Measurement of Forces Applied Using a Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope Compared to GlideScope Video Laryngoscope
NCT01814176
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of UESCOPE VL 400, I-VIEW, Airtraq for Tracheal Intubation in Simulated Out-of-Hospital Conditions
NCT05946694
COMPLETED
Evaluation of McGrath® MAC Video Laryngoscope
NCT02051400
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Conventional GlideScope to Single-Use GlideScope Cobalt for Orotracheal Intubation
NCT00459797
COMPLETED
NA
Nasal Intubation Using King Vision Video Laryngoscopy
NCT03126344
COMPLETED
NA
STorz Against Glidescope Effectiveness
NCT01632683
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Flex-It Stylet to Malleable Stylet for GlideScope Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT00771628
COMPLETED
NA
Does McGRATH® MAC Videolaryngoscope Decrease the Number of People Required to Perform Intubation During Anesthesia ?
NCT02926144
COMPLETED
NA
A Comparison of the Ease of Tracheal Intubation Using a McGrath MAC Laryngoscope and a Standard MacIntosh Laryngoscope
NCT01516164
COMPLETED
NA
Endotracheal Intubation Using Videolaryngoscopy Versus Conventional Direct Laryngoscopy
NCT04701762
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation Among Adults in Emergency Department
NCT06327867
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Neutral Position Facilitates Orotracheal Intubation With Videolaryngoscopes
NCT04858906
WITHDRAWN
NA
Measurement of Forces Applied Using a Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope Compared to GlideScope Video Laryngoscope
NCT00992628
COMPLETED
NA
GlideScope Video Laryngoscope Versus Fiberoptic Intubation
NCT01091948
COMPLETED
NA
A Comparison Between Two Video Laryngoscopes,in Successfully Intubating Pediatric Mannequins w/wo Difficult Airways
NCT02198742
COMPLETED
PHASE1
Learning and Performance of Glidescope® Videolaryngoscope Intubation
NCT01790646
UNKNOWN
Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Manikin by Novice
NCT03161730
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of First Attempt Success in Nasotracheal Intubation Using Macintosh Videolaryngoscope vs. Flexible Bronchoscope
NCT06964295
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
NA