This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply 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 Shippey, B. Articles by McKeown, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shippey, B. Articles by McKeown, D.

Case series: The McGrath® videolaryngoscope - an initial clinical evaluation

[Série de cas : Le vidéolaryngoscope McGrath® - une première évaluation clinique]

From the Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Ben Shippey, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, Scotland. Phone: +441312423224; E-mail: benshippey{at}mac.com

Purpose: To document tracheal intubation success rates and airway instrumentation times using the newly designed McGrath® videolaryngoscope.

Methods: We prospectively recorded factors associated with difficult tracheal intubation, factors causing actual difficulty in tracheal intubation, as well as complications arising from use of the new McGrath® videolaryngoscope in a series of adult patients with normal preoperative airway examinations. All patients were undergoing scheduled or elective surgery. In the first 75 patients (phase I), experience with airway instrumentation was documented, while in the second 75 patients (phase II), the time required to obtain an optimal view of the larynx was recorded, as well as the time to complete tracheal intubation.

Results: Ninety-eight percent of all tracheal intubations were successful using the McGrath® videolaryngoscope. Cormack and Lehane grade I views were obtained in 143 patients (95%) and grade II views were achieved in six (4%). In phase II, the median time required to obtain an adequate view was 6.3 sec [interquartile range 4.7–8.7 (range 2–26.3)], and to complete tracheal intubation was 24.7 sec [18.5–34.4 (11.4–286)]. Fortynine (65%) of the tracheal intubations were completed within 30 sec, and 72 (96%) were completed within one minute. No complications were encountered in any patient.

Conclusions: The McGrath® videolaryngoscope is an effective aid to airway management in patients with normal airways, based upon intubation success rates and the ability to rapidly secure the airway. Its potential advantages of convenience and portability warrant further evaluation in comparison with other airway devices and in patients with difficult airways.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. L. Savoldelli and E. Schiffer Videolaryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: the guide channel or steering techniques for endotracheal tube placement? Can J Anesth, January 1, 2008; 55(1): 59 - 60. [Full Text] [PDF]