Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 403 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 57-61

A comparative study in airway novices using king vision videolaryngoscope and conventional macintosh direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Ramaiah Teaching Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Aster Al Raffah Hospital, Sohar, Oman
3 Department of Anaesthesiology, SRM Medical College and Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vinayak Seenappa Pujari
Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Ramaiah Teaching Hospital, Bengaluru - 560 054, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_72_21

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Tracheal intubation using laryngoscopy is a fundamental skill, for an anesthesiologist. However, teaching this skill is difficult since Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) allows only one individual to view the larynx during the procedure. Hence, this study aimed to determine whether King Vision® videolaryngoscope (KVL) provides any advantage over direct laryngoscopy in teaching this skill to airway novices. Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized crossover study, Ethical Committee clearance was obtained from the institutional review board (MSRMC/EC/2017) and the study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry. After informed consent, 53 medical students were allotted to perform laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation on a manikin by using either KVL or Macintosh DL. The participants first performed laryngoscopy with either KVL or Macintosh DL following a brief instruction and then crossed over to the second arm of the study to perform laryngoscopy using the other scope. The primary outcome measure was the time for successful endotracheal intubation. The secondary outcome measures were incidence of esophageal intubation (EI), excess application of pressure on maxillary teeth excess maxillary pressure, and success rate. Results: Mean time for endotracheal intubation was significantly faster using KVL than in DL (44.64 vs. 87.72 s; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of esophageal intubation 15.1% in KVL group versus 24.5% in DL group (P = 0.223). In the KVL group, 81.1% did not apply pressure on maxillary teeth versus 26.4% in the DL group (P < 0.001). The success rate of intubation was 100% in the KVL group versus 86.8% in the DL group (P = 0.006). Conclusion: The KVL is a more effective tool to teach endotracheal intubation in comparison to Macintosh laryngoscope in airway novice medical students. Clinical trial registry India registration number: CTRI/2017/11/010491.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded30    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal