Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of an attachable video laryngoscope (AVL) by attaching a camera and a monitor to a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (CML). Normal and tongue edema airway scenarios were simulated using a manikin. Twenty physicians performed tracheal intubations using CML, AVL, Pentax Airwayscope(®) (AWS), and McGrath MAC(®) (MAC) in each scenario. Ten physicians who had clinical experience in using tracheal intubation were designated as the skilled group, and another ten physicians who were affiliated with other departments and had little clinical experience using tracheal intubation were designated as the unskilled group. The time required for intubation and the success rate were recorded. The degree of difficulty of use and glottic view assessment were scored by participants. All 20 participants successfully completed the study. There was no difference in tracheal intubation success rate and intubation time in the normal airway scenario in both skilled and unskilled groups. In the experienced group, AWS had the highest success rate (100%) in the tongue edema airway scenario, followed by AVL (60%), MAC (60%), and CML (10%) (p = 0.001). The time required to intubate using AWS was significantly shorter than that with AVL (10.2 s vs. 19.2 s) or MAC (10.2 s vs. 20.4 s, p = 0.007). The difficulty of using AVL was significantly lower than that of CML (7.8 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). For the experienced group, AVL was interpreted as being inferior to AWS but better than MAC. Similarly, in the unskilled group, AVL had a similar success rate and tracheal intubation time as MAC in the tongue edema scenario, but this was not statistically significant. The difficulty of using AVL was significantly lower than that of CML (8.8 vs. 3.3; p < 0.001). AVL may be an alternative for VL.