Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation and Cormack Lehane View Between C-Mac With Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Paediatric Patients

Paediatric Airway Clinical Trial

Official title:

Comparative Study of Time Taken for Intubation and Cormack Lehane View Between C-Mac Video Laryngoscopy With Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Paediatric Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04145089
• Other study ID #: FF-2019-004
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: June 1, 2019
• Est. completion date: January 1, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: September 2019
• Source: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study compares the time taken to intubate between Cmac video laryngoscopy with Glidescope video laryngoscopy in paediatric patients aged 3-12 years old.

Description:

This study aims to determine whether are both devices comparable to each other in terms of intubation time and Cormack Lehane view in paediatric patients with normal airway undergoing elective surgery.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 64
• Est. completion date: January 1, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: December 1, 2019
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 3 Years to 12 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Paediatric patients 3-12 years old undergoing elective surgery

• American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 1-2

• No difficult airway features/history of difficult intubation

• Not obese

Exclusion Criteria:

• Any difficult intubation features/history of difficult intubation

• Obese child

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Paediatric Airway

Intervention

Device:
• Glidescope video laryngoscopy/ C-MAC video laryngoscopy
usage of said devices according to manual

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Malaysia	Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia	Kuala Lumpur

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Malaysia, 

References & Publications (5)

Armstrong J, John J, Karsli C. A comparison between the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in paediatric patients with difficult airways - a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):353-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06294.x. Erratum in: Anaesthesia. 2010 Jun;65(6):658. — View Citation

Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Paediatric airway management: basic aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Jan;53(1):1-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01794.x. Review. Erratum in: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Apr;53(4):552. — View Citation

Hurford DM, White MC. A comparison of the Glidescope and Karl Storz DCI videolaryngoscopes in a paediatric manikin. Anaesthesia. 2010 Aug;65(8):781-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06390.x. Epub 2010 Jun 2. — View Citation

Kim JT, Na HS, Bae JY, Kim DW, Kim HS, Kim CS, Kim SD. GlideScope video laryngoscope: a randomized clinical trial in 203 paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Oct;101(4):531-4. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen234. Epub 2008 Aug 8. — View Citation

Mosier J, Chiu S, Patanwala AE, Sakles JC. A comparison of the GlideScope video laryngoscope to the C-MAC video laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;61(4):414-420.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.001. Epub 2013 Jan 30. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Other	Additional maneuvre to assist intubation	i.e external laryngeal manipulation, bougie assisted	5 minutes
Other	adverse events	i.e lip injury, desaturations	5 minutes
Primary	Intubation time	Time taken from insertion of specified laryngoscope blade to lip until presence of capnography tracing	5 minutes
Secondary	Cormack Lehane view	grade from 1-4 by operator's assesment	5 minutes