Luqman Mohd, Ahmed S Moied, Shaharyar Amal, Mannan Raihan
Cardiac Anesthesia, Fortis Hospital Mohali, Mohali, IND.
Anesthesia and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Mar 19;16(3):e56514. doi: 10.7759/cureus.56514. eCollection 2024 Mar.
Introduction Indirect laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for learning the techniques of airway management. The incorporation of small, less expensive, and yet more reliable video cameras in laryngoscopes has given the process of laryngoscopy and intubation a big leap. The King Vision video laryngoscope (Medline Industries, USA) has demonstrated promise in several settings while the Linscope video laryngoscope (Centrum, Turkey) is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of the Linscope video laryngoscope (VL) and King Vision video laryngoscope. Method This is a randomized controlled trial study. Seventy patients, after approval from the institute's ethical clearance, were divided into two groups. In Group A, patients were intubated with Linscope VL and in Group B patients were intubated with King Vision VL as per the protocol. The primary outcome measure was the duration of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were measured by the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and glottic view. Results Both Linscope VL and King Vision VL groups were comparable in terms of mean intubation time (20.34 s vs. 19.45 s). The endotracheal intubation with both devices was 100% successful at the first attempt. Both the devices provided a percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score of > 70% and a clear vision of the glottis. The POGO score obtained with King Vision VL was 83.57 ± 11.41% and with Linscope VL was 87.85 ± 10.31%. POGO score was greater with Linscope VL compared to King Vision VL, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05). Conclusion King Vision demonstrated shorter intubation time and fewer optimization maneuvers. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate on the first attempt. While both devices are viable first-line options, King Vision's well-established efficacy in the literature suggests its preference over Linscope till extensive evidence is available in the future.
引言 间接喉镜检查已成为学习气道管理技术的一种广泛接受的方法。喉镜中纳入小型、价格较低但更可靠的摄像机，使喉镜检查和插管过程有了很大飞跃。King Vision视频喉镜（美国Medline Industries公司）在多种情况下已显示出前景，而Linscope视频喉镜（土耳其Centrum公司）是一种新推出的设备，据我们所知尚无相关文献。因此，我们旨在比较Linscope视频喉镜（VL）和King Vision视频喉镜的性能。
方法 这是一项随机对照试验研究。70名患者经该机构伦理批准后被分为两组。A组患者按照方案使用Linscope VL进行插管，B组患者使用King Vision VL进行插管。主要观察指标是气管插管时间。次要观察指标通过尝试次数、插管难易程度和声门视野来衡量。
结果 Linscope VL组和King Vision VL组在平均插管时间方面具有可比性（20.34秒对19.45秒）。两种设备进行气管插管首次尝试成功率均为100%。两种设备的声门开口百分比（POGO）评分均>70%，声门视野清晰。King Vision VL获得的POGO评分为83.57±11.41%，Linscope VL为87.85±10.31%。Linscope VL的POGO评分高于King Vision VL，但差异无统计学意义（p值>0.05）。
结论 King Vision显示出较短的插管时间和较少的优化操作。两种设备首次尝试成功率均达100%。虽然两种设备都是可行的一线选择，但King Vision在文献中已确立的疗效表明，在未来有更多广泛证据之前，它比Linscope更受青睐。
