ABSTRACT
This prospective randomised, controlled trial compares the performance of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes (KingVision™ , Airtraq™ , A.P. Advance™ MAC) and the standard Macintosh laryngoscope. With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 480 patients were included. A difficult airway was created with a cervical collar, limiting mouth opening and neck movement. Primary outcome was first-attempt orotracheal intubation success. Overall success, laryngeal view, intubation difficulty scale, handling, intubation times and side-effects were secondary outcomes. First-attempt success rates were: KingVision 90% (95% CI 83-94%), Airtraq 82% (74-88%), A.P. Advance MAC 49% (40-58%), Macintosh 44% (35-53%; p < 0.001). The 95% confidence interval of first-attempt success rate was thus below 90% for all devices, but the KingVision and the Airtraq performed better than the A.P. Advance MAC and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Also, performance was better with the KingVision and the Airtraq in terms of overall success, laryngeal view, intubation difficulty scale and quality of view. Problems with tube advancement were a frequent cause of intubation failure. In summary, the KingVision and the Airtraq performed better than the A.P. Advance MAC and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Success rates of the unchannelled KingVision and Airtraq were similar to those of their channelled versions reported previously, indicating that performance largely depends on blade design rather than the presence of a channel for tube advancement.