Main Article Content
Background: Intubation is a common essential procedure to maintain the airway during general anesthesia. Various video laryngoscopes (VL) on the market today assist anesthesiologists in improving intubation success rates and also in complicated airway cases. There are two types of VL found in our institution, which are C-MAC and McGrath®. Each of them has its pros and cons, which withdrawn our curiosity to compare their effectiveness.
Methods: A pilot study was conducted in our center; we included all patients undergoing general anesthesia with physical status ASA I-III and consent to the study and divide them into two groups, C-MAC and McGrath®. We compare C-MAC and McGrath® VL effectiveness in terms of time for intubation, ease of intubation, total attempt, failure to intubate, Cormack Lehane degree, POGO Score, and hemodynamic stability.
Results: A total of 20 patients were intubated with two different VL, ten patients for each group. Both VLs accommodate ease of intubation, and overall first attempt successful intubation, though C-MAC showed better laryngeal and glottic visualization, shorter tracheal intubation times, and less hemodynamic change.
Conclusion: C-MAC gives better results in laryngeal and glottic visualization, shorter tracheal intubation times, and less hemodynamic change.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Storz K. Instruction for use C-MAC ® video laryngoscope 8401xxx, Electronic Module 8401 / 8402 X , C-MAC ® PM 8401 XD. Germany: KARL STORZ SE & Co.KG. 2019.
- Aircraft-Medical. McGrath operator's manual. United Kingdom: Aircraft Medical Ltd. 2017.
- Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2012;109:439–443. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes145
- Shin M, Bai SJ, Lee KY, et al. Comparing McGRATH® MAC, C-MAC®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes operated by medical students: A randomized, crossover, manikin study. BioMed Research International. 2016. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8943931
- Akbas S, Ozkan AS, Karaaslan E. A Comparison of McGrath MAC versus C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care. 2019;14:25–33. DOI: 10.1089/bari.2018.0052
- 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. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016;116:670–679. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew058
- Gupta S, Sharma KRR, Jain D. Airway assessment: Predictors of difficult airway. Indian J Anaesth. 2005;49:257–262. Available at: https://www.ijaweb.org/article.asp?issn=0019- 5049;year=2005;volume=49;issue=4;spage=257;epage=257;aulast=Gupta;type=2
- Maassen R, Lee R, Hermans B, et al. A comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: The macintosh laryngoscope blade reduces, but does not replace, routine stylet use for intubation in morbidly obese patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2009;109:1560–1565. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b7303a
- Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, et al. Assessment of airway visualization: Validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Academic Emergency Medicine. 1998;5:919–923. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02823.x
- Kilicaslan A, Topal A, Tavlan A, et al. Effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in the management of unexpected failed intubations. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2014;64:62–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.001
- Xue FS, Li HX, Liu YY, et al. Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: A review of the literature. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2017;13:831–841. DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S136221
- Cierniak M, Timler D, Wieczorek A, et al. The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: The Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2016;30:379–387. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9727-2