Indirect laryngoscopy is more effective than direct laryngoscopy when tracheal intubation is performed by novice...

We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether indirect laryngoscopy has an advantage over direct laryngoscopy in terms of the tracheal intubation rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time when used by novice operators.

We extracted adult prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation with indirect vs direct laryngoscopy in novice operators from electronic databases. We extracted the following data from the identified studies: success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Data from each trial were combined via a random-effects model to calculate the pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed a trial sequential analysis.

We included 15 articles (17 trials) comprising 2,290 patients in the systematic review. Compared with the direct laryngoscopy, indirect laryngoscopy improved success rate (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.24; P = 0.0002; I² = 88%), glottic visualization (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.28; P < 0.001; I² = 85%), and intubation time (WMD, -9.06 sec; 95% CI, -16.4 to -1.76; P = 0.01; I² = 98%) in tracheal intubation. Trial sequential analysis showed that the total sample size was sufficient to analyze the success rate and intubation time.

In this systematic review, we found that the tracheal intubation success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time were improved when novice operators used indirect laryngoscopy rather than direct laryngoscopy. Trial sequential analysis results indicated that the sample size was sufficient for examining the success rate and intubation time.

PROSPERO (CRD42022309045); first registered 4 September 2022.