UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Video laryngoscopes and optical stylets for airway management for anesthesia in adults

Authors
Richard M Cooper, MD, B.Sc. M.Sc., FRCPC
Matteo Parotto, MD, PhD
Section Editor
Carin A Hagberg, MD
Deputy Editor
Marianna Crowley, MD

INTRODUCTION

Video laryngoscopes (VLs) and optical stylets (OSs) are rigid devices that allow indirect laryngoscopy, or visualization of the vocal cords and related airway structures without a direct line of sight.

VLs are fundamentally retraction devices with illumination and optical elements. In contrast, OSs provide little retraction. They are tubular devices that fit inside the tracheal tube and convey an image using either a fiberoptic bundle or a video camera.

Optical indirect laryngoscopes use prisms, lenses, and mirrors rather than electronic components. The only available example of such a device is the Airtraq, which for the sake of simplicity we will consider a VL.

This topic will discuss the various types of VLs and OSs, the techniques used for endotracheal intubation with these devices in adults, and airway management outcomes with their use. Direct laryngoscopy, flexible scope intubation, use of supraglottic airways in anesthesia, and videolaryngoscopy in children, are discussed separately. (See "Direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in adults" and "Flexible scope intubation for anesthesia" and "Supraglottic devices (including laryngeal mask airways) for airway management for anesthesia in adults" and "Devices for difficult endotracheal intubation in children", section on 'Video laryngoscope'.)

ADVANTAGES OF VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPES AND OPTICAL STYLETS

The primary advantage of indirect laryngoscopy devices is the ability to look around corners, enabling the operator to see what is not within the line of sight, using fiberoptic bundles, video cameras, or prisms. Other advantages include the option for other clinicians to simultaneously see what the operator sees, which creates opportunity for collaboration and teaching, and the fact that almost all of these devices enlarge the image. Some devices allow for recording, which is useful for clinical documentation, quality improvement, and teaching. They also create an opportunity for remote supervision by a more experienced airway manager, which may be beneficial in rural hospitals and during prehospital emergency airway management [1].

                   

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: May 2017. | This topic last updated: May 16, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Sakles JC, Mosier J, Hadeed G, et al. Telemedicine and telepresence for prehospital and remote hospital tracheal intubation using a GlideScope™ videolaryngoscope: a model for tele-intubation. Telemed J E Health 2011; 17:185.
  2. Russell T, Khan S, Elman J, et al. Measurement of forces applied during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2012; 67:626.
  3. Russell T, Lee C, Firat M, Cooper RM. A comparison of the forces applied to a manikin during laryngoscopy with the GlideScope and Macintosh laryngoscopes. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011; 39:1098.
  4. Xue FS, Zhang GH, Li XY, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 2007; 19:245.
  5. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:723.
  6. Siddiqui N, Katznelson R, Friedman Z. Heart rate/blood pressure response and airway morbidity following tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy, GlideScope and Trachlight: a randomized control trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:740.
  7. Koh JC, Lee JS, Lee YW, Chang CH. Comparison of the laryngeal view during intubation using Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization and mouth opening limitation. Korean J Anesthesiol 2010; 59:314.
  8. Sarkılar G, Sargın M, Sarıtaş TB, et al. Hemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation performed with video and direct laryngoscopy in patients scheduled for major cardiac surgery. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8:11477.
  9. Cooper RM, Law AJ. Rigid fiberoptic and video laryngoscopes. In: Management of the Difficult and Failed Airway, 3rd ed, Hung O, Murphy M (Eds), McGraw-Hill, New York 2016.
  10. Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, et al. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010; 54:1050.
  11. Paolini JB, Donati F, Drolet P. Review article: video-laryngoscopy: another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management? Can J Anaesth 2013; 60:184.
  12. Cooper RM, Lee C. Role of rigid video laryngoscopy. In: The Difficult Airway: An Atlas of Tools and Techniques for Clinical Management. Glick DB, Cooper RM, Ovassapian A (Eds), Springer, New York 2013. p.77.
  13. van Zundert A, Maassen R, Lee R, et al. A Macintosh laryngoscope blade for videolaryngoscopy reduces stylet use in patients with normal airways. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:825.
  14. https://www.karlstorz.com/iq/en/highlights-an.htm?d=HM&s=AN#mod-10112.
  15. http://www.medtronic.com/content/dam/covidien/library/global/en/product/intubation-products/gal-1.jpeg.
  16. http://www.ambu.com/corp/products/clinical_studies/king_vision%C2%AE_video_laryngoscope.aspx.
  17. van Zundert A, van Zundert T, Brimacombe J. Downfolding of the Epiglottis During Intubation. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2010; 110:1246.
  18. Levitan RM, Mechem CC, Ochroch EA, et al. Head-elevated laryngoscopy position: improving laryngeal exposure during laryngoscopy by increasing head elevation. Ann Emerg Med 2003; 41:322.
  19. Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2012; 59:41.
  20. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth 2005; 52:191.
  21. Kaplan MB, Hagberg CA, Ward DS, et al. Comparison of direct and video-assisted views of the larynx during routine intubation. J Clin Anesth 2006; 18:357.
  22. Piepho T, Fortmueller K, Heid FM, et al. Performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in patients after a limited glottic view using Macintosh laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2011; 66:1101.
  23. Noppens RR, Geimer S, Eisel N, et al. Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective, comparative study in the ICU. Crit Care 2012; 16:R103.
  24. Lu Y, Jiang H, Zhu YS. Airtraq laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2011; 66:1160.
  25. Su YC, Chen CC, Lee YK, et al. Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:788.
  26. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013; 118:251.
  27. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, et al. The difficult airway with recommendations for management--part 1--difficult tracheal intubation encountered in an unconscious/induced patient. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60:1089.
  28. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115:827.
  29. Myatra SN, Shah A, Kundra P, et al. All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation in adults. Indian J Anaesth 2016; 60:885.
  30. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology 2012; 116:629.
  31. Hoshijima H, Kuratani N, Hirabayashi Y, et al. Pentax Airway Scope® vs Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2014; 69:911.
  32. Byhahn C, Iber T, Zacharowski K, et al. Tracheal intubation using the mobile C-MAC video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy for patients with a simulated difficult airway. Minerva Anestesiol 2010.
  33. Sulser S, Ubmann D, Schlaepfer M, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in an emergency department: A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016.
  34. Yumul R, Elvir-Lazo OL, White PF, et al. Comparison of three video laryngoscopy devices to direct laryngoscopy for intubating obese patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth 2016; 31:71.
  35. Andersen LH, Rovsing L, Olsen KS. GlideScope videolaryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2011; 55:1090.
  36. Suppan L, Tramèr MR, Niquille M, et al. Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 2016; 116:27.
  37. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, et al. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11:CD011136.
  38. Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, et al. The GlideScope Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94:381.
  39. Levitan RM, Heitz JW, Sweeney M, Cooper RM. The complexities of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy and alternative intubation devices. Ann Emerg Med 2011; 57:240.
  40. Asai T, Liu EH, Matsumoto S, et al. Use of the Pentax-AWS in 293 patients with difficult airways. Anesthesiology 2009; 110:898.
  41. Lim TJ, Lim Y, Liu EH. Evaluation of ease of intubation with the GlideScope or Macintosh laryngoscope by anaesthetists in simulated easy and difficult laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2005; 60:180.
  42. Malik MA, Subramaniam R, Maharaj CH, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the Pentax AWS, Glidescope, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in predicted difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103:761.
  43. Ndoko SK, Amathieu R, Tual L, et al. Tracheal intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial comparing performance of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100:263.
  44. Cortellazzi P, Caldiroli D, Byrne A, et al. Defining and developing expertise in tracheal intubation using a GlideScope(®) for anaesthetists with expertise in Macintosh direct laryngoscopy: an in-vivo longitudinal study. Anaesthesia 2015; 70:290.
  45. Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, et al. 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; 114:34.
  46. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, et al. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth 2016; 116:670.
  47. Aziz MF, Bayman EO, Van Tienderen MM, et al. Predictors of difficult videolaryngoscopy with GlideScope® or C-MAC® with D-blade: secondary analysis from a large comparative videolaryngoscopy trial. Br J Anaesth 2016; 117:118.
  48. Tremblay MH, Williams S, Robitaille A, Drolet P. Poor visualization during direct laryngoscopy and high upper lip bite test score are predictors of difficult intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Anesth Analg 2008; 106:1495.
  49. Thong SY, Wong TG. Clinical uses of the Bonfils Retromolar Intubation Fiberscope: a review. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:855.
  50. Nowakowski M, Williams S, Gallant J, et al. Predictors of Difficult Intubation with the Bonfils Rigid Fiberscope. Anesth Analg 2016; 122:1901.
  51. Corbanese U, Morossi M. The Bonfils intubation fibrescope: clinical evaluation and consideration of the learning curve. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:622.
  52. Aziz M, Metz S. Clinical evaluation of the Levitan Optical Stylet. Anaesthesia 2011; 66:579.
  53. Byhahn C, Nemetz S, Breitkreutz R, et al. Brief report: tracheal intubation using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope or direct laryngoscopy for patients with a simulated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth 2008; 55:232.
  54. Cooper RM. Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Can J Anaesth 2007; 54:54.
  55. Choo MK, Yeo VS, See JJ. Another complication associated with videolaryngoscopy. Can J Anaesth 2007; 54:322.
  56. Aziz MF, Abrons RO, Cattano D, et al. 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; 122:740.
  57. Greer D, Marshall KE, Bevans S, et al. Review of videolaryngoscopy pharyngeal wall injuries. Laryngoscope 2016.
  58. Halligan M, Charters P. A clinical evaluation of the Bonfils Intubation Fibrescope. Anaesthesia 2003; 58:1087.