Video laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: an evidence-based analysis

The objective of this health technology policy assessment was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation.

Video-assisted, rigid laryngoscopes have been recently introduced that allow for the illumination of the airway and the accurate placement of the endotracheal tube. Two such devices are available in Canada: the Bullard® Laryngoscope that relies on fibre optics for illumination and the GlideScope® that uses a video camera and a light source to illuminate the airway. Both are connected to an external monitor so health professionals other than the operator can visualize the insertion of the tube. These devices therefore may be very useful as teaching aids for tracheal intubation.

The objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of the most commonly used video-assisted rigid laryngoscopes used in Canada for tracheal intubation. According to the Medical Advisory Secretariat standard search strategy, a literature search for current health technology assessments and peer-reviewed literature from Medline (full citations, in-process and non-indexed citations) and Embase for was conducted for citations from January 1994 to January 2004. Key words used in the search were as follows: Video-assisted; video; emergency; airway management; tracheal intubation and laryngoscopy.

Two video-assisted systems are available for use in Canada. The Bullard® video laryngscope has a large body of literature associated with it and has been used for the last 10 years, although most of the studies are small and not well conducted. The literature on the GlideScope® is limited. In general, these devices provide better views of the airway but are much more expensive than conventional direct laryngoscopes. As with most medical procedures, video-assisted laryngoscopy requires training and skill maintenance for successful use. There seems to be a discrepancy between the seeming advantages of these devices in the management of difficult airway and their availability and uptake outside the operating room. The uptake of these devices by non-anesthetists in Ontario at this time may be limited because: Difficult intubation is relatively infrequent outside the operating roomMany alternative and inexpensive devices are availableThere are no professional supports in place for the training and maintenance of skills for the use of these devices outside anesthesia.Video laryngoscopy has no obvious utility in preventing airborne viral transmission from patient to provider but may be useful for teaching purposes.