Video laryngoscopy: Difference between revisions

Line 7: Line 7:


==Indications==
==Indications==
*Anticipated difficult intubation
*Any patient requiring [[intubation]]
**Particularly useful in patients with known or anticipated difficult intubation


==Contraindications==
==Contraindications==

Revision as of 22:11, 28 November 2020

Overview

  • Two principal versions are the C-MAC and the Glidescope
    • Glidescope first introduced in 2001, features a hyperangulated blade
    • CMAC features a Macintosh or standard geometry blade
    • Today, both CMAC and Glidescope systems offer hyperangulated and standard geometry blades
  • Increasingly utilized in emergency airway management

Indications

  • Any patient requiring intubation
    • Particularly useful in patients with known or anticipated difficult intubation

Contraindications

  • Relative:
    • Blood or emesis in airway
    • Foreign body removal

Equipment Needed

  • Video laryngoscope
  • Rigid stylet if hyperangulated blade is used
  • All other equipment necessary for endotracheal intubation

Procedure

  • Hyperangulated Video Laryngoscope
    • Patient ideally in neutral spine position (as opposed to "sniffing" position for direct laryngoscopy)
    • After induction, use right hand to "scissor" mouth open
    • Place hyperangulated blade midline and slowly advance with progressive identification of airway landmarks
    • Advance blade into vallecula
    • When cords fill entire screen (Cormack-Lehane Grade I), slightly retract laryngoscopy so that cords only occupy upper 1/3 of screen (CL Grade II, allows for passage of ETT with rigid stylet)
      • If intubation is attempted with the best view possible, operators often have difficulty advancing the tube around the tongue and hypopharyngeal soft tissues
  • Standard Geometry Video Laryngoscope
    • Same technique utilized with direct laryngoscopy
    • Can either visualize directly or utilize video screen for tube delivery

Complications

  • Risk of equipment failure with hyperangulated laryngoscope (unable to obtain direct view if screen fails)
  • Risk of camera contamination with blood or emesis in airway
  • Foreign body removal with hyperangulated laryngoscope less successful than with Macintosh laryngoscope [1]

See Also

Airway Pages

References

  1. Je, S. M., Kim, M. J., Chung, S. P., & Chung, H. S. (2012). Comparison of GlideScope® versus Macintosh laryngoscope for the removal of a hypopharyngeal foreign body: A randomized cross-over cadaver study. Resuscitation, 83(10), 1277–1280.