Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 4/2016

Open Access 01-08-2016 | Original Research

The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision

Authors: Marcin Cierniak, Dariusz Timler, Andrzej Wieczorek, Przemyslaw Sekalski, Natalia Borkowska, Tomasz Gaszynski

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Currently, there are plenty of videolaryngoscopes that appear on the market. They have different specifications. Some of these features favor the fact that they are more suited for educational purposes of future operators and others can be characterized with an excellent clinical use. In this study we compared four types of videolaryngoscopes. The aim of the study was to compare the technical specifications of the above-mentioned devices for usefulness in clinical practice and correlate these parameters with the subjective evaluation of these videolaryngoscopes usage performed in practice by an experienced medical staff. All devices considered in this study participated in another multicenter clinical study on the basis of which we completed the subjective evaluation of the operators. In order to examine the technical parameters of the equipment we established the cooperation with the Department of Microelectronics at Technical University of Lodz. Mechanical and optical parameters and the endoscopic tube current were taken into consideration. The C-MAC has a camera with the widest viewing angle (the OX axis—63.1, the axis OY—47.8), which in combination with the largest diagonal size of the display enables the operator to see the details relevant to clinical practice. It has also the strongest lamp intensity of the devices mentioned in this comparison (7800 Lx). In comparison of the clinical use in almost all compared parameters the Cmac D-blade is a winner, although for clinical education purpose we consider the Vividtrac a better device.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Wayne MA, McDonnell M. Comparison of traditional versus videolaryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):278–82.CrossRefPubMed Wayne MA, McDonnell M. Comparison of traditional versus videolaryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):278–82.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:32–7.CrossRefPubMed Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:32–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope video laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381–4.CrossRefPubMed Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, Klein R, Umedaly HS, Moult M. The GlideScope video laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381–4.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW. A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16:866–71.CrossRefPubMed Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW. A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16:866–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Lim HC, Goh SH. Utilization of a GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubations in different emergency airway management settings. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009;16:68–73.CrossRefPubMed Lim HC, Goh SH. Utilization of a GlideScope videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubations in different emergency airway management settings. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009;16:68–73.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(11):1207–10.CrossRefPubMed Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, Kirkbride R, Mackintosh K. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(11):1207–10.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Case series: the McGrath videolaryngoscope- an initial clinical evaluation. Can J Anesth. 2007;54:307–13.CrossRefPubMed Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Case series: the McGrath videolaryngoscope- an initial clinical evaluation. Can J Anesth. 2007;54:307–13.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116–9.CrossRefPubMed Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Shimada N, Hayashi K, Sugimoto K, Takahashi M, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. The KINGVISION: clinical assessment of performance in 50 patients. Masui. 2013;62(6):757–60.PubMed Shimada N, Hayashi K, Sugimoto K, Takahashi M, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. The KINGVISION: clinical assessment of performance in 50 patients. Masui. 2013;62(6):757–60.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Hayashi K, Shimada N, Shiba J, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. A manikin study of the KingVision videolaryngoscope compared with Airwayscope. Masui. 2014;63(8):927–30.PubMed Hayashi K, Shimada N, Shiba J, Niwa Y, Takeuchi M. A manikin study of the KingVision videolaryngoscope compared with Airwayscope. Masui. 2014;63(8):927–30.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Healy D, Picton P, Morris M, Turner C. Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Healy D, Picton P, Morris M, Turner C. Comparison of the glidescope, CMAC, storz DCI with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated difficult laryngoscopy: a manikin study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Lipe DN, Lindstrom R, Tauferner D, Mitchell C, Moffett P. Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):548–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lipe DN, Lindstrom R, Tauferner D, Mitchell C, Moffett P. Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):548–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Mutlak H, Rolle U, Rosskopf W, Schalk R, Zacharowski K, Meininger D, Byhahn C. Comparison of the TruView infant EVO2 PCD™ and C-MAC video laryngoscopes with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in infants with normal Airways. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(1):23–7.CrossRef Mutlak H, Rolle U, Rosskopf W, Schalk R, Zacharowski K, Meininger D, Byhahn C. Comparison of the TruView infant EVO2 PCD™ and C-MAC video laryngoscopes with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in infants with normal Airways. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(1):23–7.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, Lee K, Segal R. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(3):439–43.CrossRefPubMed Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, Lee K, Segal R. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(3):439–43.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, Hung OR, Law JA, MacQuarrie K, McKeen D, George RB, Ngan J. The McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintoshlaryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(2):142–7. doi:10.1111/anae.12075. Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, Hung OR, Law JA, MacQuarrie K, McKeen D, George RB, Ngan J. The McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintoshlaryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(2):142–7. doi:10.​1111/​anae.​12075.
20.
go back to reference Gaszynski T. Clinical experience with the C-Mac videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesiol Inten Ther. 2014;46(1):14–6.CrossRef Gaszynski T. Clinical experience with the C-Mac videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesiol Inten Ther. 2014;46(1):14–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision
Authors
Marcin Cierniak
Dariusz Timler
Andrzej Wieczorek
Przemyslaw Sekalski
Natalia Borkowska
Tomasz Gaszynski
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9727-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 4/2016 Go to the issue