Comparison of C-MACTM videolaryngoscope with Macintosh Laryngoscope in anticipated difficult airway: A randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Background: Failure to intubate is one of the dreaded outcomes of airway management. Videolaryngoscopes have the potential to increase intubation success by overcoming the shortcomings of direct laryngoscopy. This study aimed to compare the first-attempt intubation success rate of the C-MACTM videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with anticipated difficult airways. Methods: Eighty adult patients with multiple predictors of difficult airway scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised either into Group C (first using the C-MACTM videolaryngoscope) or Group D (first using the Macintosh laryngoscope). Laryngoscopy was done sequentially with both laryngoscopes in a patient based on the randomisation. The primary outcome was the first-attempt intubation success rate. Intubation time, Cormack–Lehane view, use of airway adjuncts and the need for external laryngeal manipulations constituted the secondary outcomes. Results: The first-attempt intubation success rate was 100% in both groups with the P value 1.0 and the intubation time was 26 s in Group C and 24.4 s in Group D with P = 0.17. The C-MACTM videolaryngoscope provided better grades of laryngoscopic view than direct laryngoscopy (P = 0.02). Tracheal tube introducer-assisted intubation (P = 0.01) and requirement of laryngeal manipulation to aid intubation (P = 0.01) were higher with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Conclusion: The Macintosh laryngoscope was comparable to the C-MACTM videolaryngoscope in terms of intubation success, intubation time and complications. However, an increased requirement for external laryngeal manipulation, lifting force and the use of an introducer for intubation were noted in the Macintosh group.