This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jones, P. M. Articles by Harle, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, P. M. Articles by Harle, C. C.

Effect of stylet angulation and endotracheal tube camber on time to intubation with the GlideScope®

[Effet de l’angulation du mandrin et de la cambrure de la sonde endotrachéale sur le temps requis pour l’intubation avec le GlideScope®]

From the Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Philip M. Jones, Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre – University Hospital, Room C3-110, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada. Phone: 519-685-8500; Fax: 519-663-2957; E-mail: philip.jones{at}lhsc.on.ca

Purpose: The GlideScope® videolaryngoscope usually provides excellent glottic visualization, but directing an endotracheal tube (ETT) through the vocal cords is sometimes difficult. The goal of the study was to determine which of two ETT angles (60° vs 90°) and cambers (forward vs reverse) was better, as determined by time to intubation (TTI).

Methods: Two hundred patients requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to one of four groups: A) 90° angle, forward camber; B) 90° angle, reverse camber; C) 60° angle, forward camber; D) 60° angle, reverse camber. Time to intubation was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the point of intubation. A visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, and use of external laryngeal manipulation were recorded.

Results: The angle of the ETT had an impact on TTI but camber did not. The 90° angle demonstrated a 13% faster TTI than the 60° angle (47.1 ± 21.2 sec vs 54.4 ± 28.2 sec, P = 0.042), and it resulted in easier intubation (VAS 16.4 ± 14.2 mm vs 27.3 ± 23.5 mm, P = 0.0001). The overall incidence of a grade 1 or 2 Cormack-Lehane glottic view was 99%.

Conclusions: In a heterogeneous group of operators and patients intubated with the GlideScope®, a 90° ETT angle provided the best result and should be the initial configuration. The camber of the ETT does not affect the time to intubation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. E. Cho and H. K. Kil REPLY Can J Anesth, May 1, 2008; 55(5): 314 - 315. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-H. Tremblay, S. Williams, A. Robitaille, and P. Drolet Poor Visualization During Direct Laryngoscopy and High Upper Lip Bite Test Score Are Predictors of Difficult Intubation with the GlideScope(R) Videolaryngoscope Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1495 - 1500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. P. Turkstra, C. C. Harle, K. P. Armstrong, P. M. Armstrong, R. A. Cherry, J. Hoogstra, and P. M. Jones The GlideScope(R)-specific rigid stylet and standard malleable stylet are equally effective for GlideScope(R) use: [Le mandrin rigide specifique au GlideScope(R) et le mandrin flexible standard sont tous deux aussi efficaces pour l'utilisation avec le GlideScope(R)] Can J Anesth, November 1, 2007; 54(11): 891 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Dupanovic Angled or curved stylet for intubation with the GlideScope(R)? Can J Anesth, June 1, 2007; 54(6): 487 - 488. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Jones, T. P. Turkstra, C. Harle, and K. Armstrong REPLY Can J Anesth, June 1, 2007; 54(6): 488 - 488. [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: