A randomised trial comparing the CEL‐100 videolaryngoscopeTM with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade for insertion of double‐lumen tubes

Abstract

We performed a randomised trial comparing the CEL‐100 videolaryngoscope^TM with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade in 170 patients undergoing double‐lumen tube placement for thoracic surgery. Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope blade, use of the CEL‐100 resulted in significantly more patients with a Cormack and Lehane Grade‐1 laryngeal view (90.4% vs 61.0%, p < 0.001), a higher rate of successful intubation on the first attempt (92.8% vs 79.3%, p = 0.012), a lower median (IQR [range]) intubation difficulty score (0 (0–0 [0–60]) vs 15 (0–30 [0–80]), p < 0.001), a higher incidence of correct positioning of the tube (90.3% vs 79.2%, p = 0.041) and significantly fewer patients requiring external laryngeal pressure (19.3% vs 32.9%, p = 0.046). Median (IQR [range]) time to successful intubation was 45 (38–55 [22–132]) s with the CEL‐100 compared with 51 (40–61 [30–160] s using the Macintosh laryngoscope blade. We conclude that the CEL‐100 videolaryngoscope is superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope blade for double‐lumen tube insertion.