Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy, Truview EVO2 and Glidescope in Pediatric Patients
Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy, Truview EVO2 and Glidescope in Pediatric Patients
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two novel videolaryngoscope systems, the Glidescope and the Truview PCD against standard direct laryngoscopy (DL) in pediatric patients. The investigators primary hypothesis is that the use of videolaryngoscope devices, Glidescope and Truview provide better laryngeal views in pediatric patients as measured by Cormack and ehane (C&L) (1 to 4, 4 the worst), without increasing the time taken to intubate (TTI), compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL).
The investigators secondary hypotheses are that the use of Glidescope and Truview PCD provoke less hemodynamic response and fewer episodes of de-saturation in pediatric patients.
Advances in airway management have led to development on videolaryngoscopy devices including the Glidescope® (Verathon Inc, Bothwell, USA), the AWD® (Pentax Corporation, Tokio, Japan) and most recently the Truview PCD (Truphatek International Ltd, Netanya, Israel). The use of videolaryngoscopy devices in adults have demonstrated some advantages including, minimal trauma on the airway and better view of the glottis.
The Glidescope is designed with a 60º angle and a camera on the inferior aspect just at the inflection point. The view is obtained anteriorly and the camera is located remote from the glottis providing a good visual field. The video image is displayed on a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), with electronic recording available. Despite a good experience using Glidescope in adults, few studies have been published in pediatric patients. Kim et al. in a randomized study comparing the use of Glidescope with direct laryngoscopy in children, demonstrated better or equal laryngoscopic view with longer time for intubation using the Glidescope.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: