Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Anaesthesia. 2010 Nov;65(11):1126-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06513.x. Epub 2010 Sep 30.

Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC, Glidescope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation.

Author information

Department of Women's Anaesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.


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.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons


    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center