Anesthesia & Clinical Research
Open Access

Abstract

A randomized Comparison of C-MAC Videolaryngscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope for Tracheal Intubation

V. Hodgetts, R. F. Danha, C. Mendonca and C. Hillerman

Purpose: The present study compared the C-MAC videolaryngoscope (C-MAC) with Macintosh laryngoscope with regard to the laryngoscopic view, laryngoscopic time and time required to complete the tracheal intubation. We aimed to investigate any disadvantages that the C-MAC laryngoscope may have when used in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Ninety patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anaesthesia and tracheal intubation were randomly allocated to receive tracheal intubation using the C-MAC or the Macintosh laryngoscope. Following a standardised general anaesthetic, data were collected during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.

Results: The median laryngoscopic time (IQR) for the C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope respectively were 9.8 (4) and 8.1 (3.3) seconds (p = 0.037). The median total intubation time (IQR) for the C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope respectively were 29.2 (18.6) and 23.5 (9.4) seconds, (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in the laryngoscopic view, additional airway manoeuvres and success rate of tracheal intubation between the two groups.

Conclusion: Although the differences in the laryngoscopic time and intubation time were statistically significant, they did not achieve clinical significance. Therefore we conclude that the C-MAC videolaryngoscope may be used in routine clinical practice for tracheal intubation.