A randomised trial comparing the CEL-100 videolaryngoscope(TM) 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.