Yahagi Musashi, Omi Kyuma, Yaguchi Yuichi
Department of Anesthesiology, Hitachi General Hospital, 2-1-1 Jonan-cho, Hitachi, 317-0077, Ibaraki, Japan.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Apr 25;25(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y.
Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.
Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.
The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.
The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.
Registration number: jRCT1030240598 ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422 ) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.
视频喉镜广泛用于气管插管，尤其是在具有挑战性的气道场景中。麦格拉斯MAC、气道镜和AceScope是具有不同设计特点的常用视频喉镜。本研究旨在比较这三种设备在使用人体模型模拟气管插管场景中对新手医疗人员的有效性和易用性。
60名新手医疗人员，包括护士和药剂师，参与了这项随机交叉研究。参与者在正常气道和颈椎固定模型中分别使用麦格拉斯MAC、气道镜和AceScope进行气管插管。主要结局是插管成功率和插管时间。次要结局包括使用者偏好、设备易用性和牙齿损伤发生率。
在正常气道和颈椎固定模型中，气道镜的插管时间最短（分别为14.90±1.76秒和23.80±2.43秒），其次是麦格拉斯MAC和AceScope。所有设备的成功率都很高，三种视频喉镜在感知难度上没有显著差异。各设备的牙齿损伤发生率总体相当。然而，在颈椎固定模型中，AceScope的牙齿损伤发生率明显高于麦格拉斯MAC（p<0.05），这突出了临床实践中的一个潜在问题。
就插管时间而言，气道镜是最有效的视频喉镜，其次是麦格拉斯MAC和AceScope。然而，所有设备的成功率都很高，在感知难度上没有显著差异。需要进一步研究以在临床环境中验证这些发现，并调查特定设备特征对插管结局和牙齿损伤发生率的影响。
注册号：jRCT1030240598（https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422）。该临床试验的注册日期为2025年1月8日。UMIN000050394。
