Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Anesthesiol. Dec 2, 2021; 10(2): 7-15
Published online Dec 2, 2021. doi: 10.5313/wja.v10.i2.7
Table 1 Video laryngoscopy performed on a mannequin with a pre-formed vs a conventional endotracheal tube
Outcome measures
Pre-formed tube
Conventional tube
P value
Intubations, n6060
Time to intubate in s, average (range)22 (15-42)12 (7-15)0.008a
First-pass success, n (%)57 (95) 49 (81)0.03a
Torque > 8 PSI, n (%)5 (8) 39 (65)0.001a
Table 2 Indications for specifically planned video laryngoscopy
Indication
n
Mallampati 49
Micrognathia/receding mandible8
Macroglossia4
Abnormal dentation10
Trisomy 3
Neck collar3
Neck contracture2
Neck osteoarthritis16
BMI > 456
Hemiglossectomy1
Total 62
Table 3 Comparison between video laryngoscopy using a pre-formed tube and direct laryngoscopy

VL with pre-formed tube
DL
P value
Patients, n (%)244 (41)318 (59)
Second attempts, n (%)25 (10)57 (18)0.02a
Throat pain, n (%)14 (6)78 (24)0.009a