Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: Pentax Airway Scope, C‐MAC™, Glidescope® vs the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation*

Abstract

We compared the intubating characteristics of the Pentax Airway Scope, the C‐MAC™ and the Glidescope^® with those of the Macintosh laryngoscope in 400 patients without predictors of difficult intubation. We found shorter intubation times with the Airway Scope (mean (SD) 20.6 (11.5) s) compared with the C‐MAC (31.9 (17.6) s) and Glidescope (31.2 (15.0) s), p < 0.001. The median (IQR [range]) score for ease of intubation was significantly lower (better) with the Airway Scope (0 (0–8.75 [0–60])) than with the C‐MAC (10 (0–20 [0–90])) or Glidescope (0 (0–20 [0–80])), p < 0.001. Ease of blade insertion in the C‐MAC (0 (0–0 [0–30])) was superior to that of the Airway Scope (0 (0–0 [0–70])), Macintosh (0 (0–0 [0–80])) or Glidescope (0 (0–10 [0–60])), p = 0.006. More patients had a grade 1 laryngeal view with the Airway Scope (97%) compared with the C‐MAC (87%), Glidescope (78%), or Macintosh (58%), p < 0.001. There were no grade 3 laryngeal views with the Airway Scope. The three videolaryngoscopes had comparable first attempt successful intubation rates: 95% for the Airway Scope, 93% for the C‐MAC and 91% for the Glidescope.