{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03205128205128205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03155818540433925, 'mean_word_length': 5.148484848484848, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures

Background: GlideScope (GS) is a video laryngoscope that allows a real-time view of the glottis and endotracheal intubation. It provides a better view of the larynx without the need for alignment of the airway axes. Aim: This prospective randomized comparative study is designed to compare the intubation time, hemodynamic response, and complications associated with intubation using a GS or Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) in adult subjects undergoing elective surgical procedures. Materials and Methods: Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1–2 patients were included in this prospective randomized comparative study. Patients were randomized to be intubated using either a GS or an ML. The primary outcome measure was the intubation time. The secondary outcome measures were the hemodynamic response to intubation and the incidence of mucosal injury. Statistical Analysis: Mean and standard deviation were calculated for different parameters under the study. The observed results were analyzed using Student's t-test for quantitative data and Z-test of proportions.P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Intubation time was longer in GS group (45.7033 ± 11.649 s) as compared to ML (27.773 ± 5.122 s) P< 0.0001 with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) −13.2794 to −22.5806. GS provided better Cormack and Lehane laryngoscopic view (P = 0.0016 for grade 1 view) with 95% CI −0.1389 to −0.5951. GS group exhibited more laryngoscopic response than ML group with more increase in blood pressure and heart rate, but the difference was not statistically significant. More cases of mucosal trauma were documented in GS group. Conclusion: Use of GS to facilitate intubation led to better glottic view but took a longer time to achieve endotracheal intubation. GS was associated with more hemodynamic response to intubation and mucosal injury in comparison with an ML.