Economic analysis of the use of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the surgical setting.

Lay abstract In this study, we compared the difference in hospital cost, length of hospital stay, post-surgery complications and post-surgery intensive care unit (ICU) admission between two groups of patients. Both groups of patients were admitted to the hospital for a surgical procedure and underwent general anesthesia for at least 1 h. Before administering anesthesia for surgery, an anesthesiologist inserts a tube into the patient's airway to ventilate the patient. The anesthesiologist might use different types of laryngoscope to assist with the insertion of the tube. The choice of the laryngoscope type is based on several factors such as the availability of the device, doctor's experience, preference and patient's medical and physical conditions. This study focuses on two different types of laryngoscopes: the video laryngoscope and the direct laryngoscope. Patients who received video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscope were divided into separate groups. We made sure that these two groups of patients were comparable in terms of similar age, gender and disease conditions, stayed in similar types of hospitals and had similar procedures. Compared with the direct laryngoscope group, the video laryngoscope group had lower hospital costs (reduced by US$1144­5891), at least 1-day shorter length of hospital stay, reduced rates of ICU admission and fewer complications. This study indicates that video laryngoscopy offers benefits over direct laryngoscopy for elective surgical procedures.