Intervention Protocol

You have free access to this content

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia

  1. Sharon R Lewis1,*,
  2. Amanda Nicholson2,
  3. Tim M Cook3,
  4. Andrew F Smith4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Anaesthesia Group

Published Online: 28 MAY 2014

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136


How to Cite

Lewis SR, Nicholson A, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD011136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Patient Safety Research, Lancaster, UK

  2. 2

    University of Liverpool, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Liverpool, UK

  3. 3

    Royal United Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia, Bath, UK

  4. 4

    Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Department of Anaesthetics, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK

*Sharon R Lewis, Patient Safety Research, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Pointer Court 1, Ashton Road, Lancaster, LA1 1RP, UK. Sharon.Lewis@mbht.nhs.uk. sharonrlewis@googlemail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 28 MAY 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Description of the condition

Securing the patient’s airway is a critical step during general anaesthesia. Recent data from the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and Difficult Airway Society (NAP4) in the UK suggest that tracheal intubation is used for airway management in 38.4% of general anaesthetics, estimated at 1.1 million procedures per year (Woodall 2011). A cuffed tracheal tube, considered to be the most reliable device to secure the airway, is inserted through the mouth and larynx and into the trachea to enable oxygenation and ventilation, and prevent aspiration, during general anaesthesia.

A clear view may be achieved by flexing the lower cervical spine and extending the upper cervical spine (a 'sniffing the morning air' position) enabling the intubator to create 'line of sight' to the larynx in order to pass the tracheal tube. Retractor type laryngoscopes, typically a detachable metal blade with handle (for example the Macintosh curved blade), are used to retract the tongue and soft tissue in the pharynx during this procedure, which is termed 'direct laryngoscopy'. However, whilst these laryngoscopes may be adequate to move soft tissue the intubator still requires line of sight to the larynx, provided by correct head and neck positioning of the patient.

Failed or difficult intubation is associated with complications, such as an increased risk of hypertension, desaturation, unexpected admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death (Caplan 1990; King 1990; Rose 1994). Such difficulties during intubation are estimated to occur in 1% to 6% of cases whereas failed intubation occurs in only 0.1% to 0.3% of cases (Crosby 1998; Shiga 2005).

There are increased airway management difficulties with patients who are obese (Juvin 2003; Lundstrom 2009). In the UK, NAP4 showed that obese patients accounted for 42% of patients who experienced a major airway complication during anaesthesia (Cook 2011). Functional residual capacity (FRC), which is the volume of air left in the lungs at the end of normal expiration, is reduced in obese patients and this, along with other factors, reduces respiratory reserve and makes these patients vulnerable to hypoxia if an airway is lost, making airway management more time critical and increasing the risk of postoperative chest infections and other complications (Adams 2000; Malhotra 2008; Marley 2005).

In addition to obesity there are other reasons why intubation may prove difficult, for example cervical instability, other restrictions on neck flexion, narrow jaw opening, enlarged tongue and poor tissue mobility. Predictive tests are used prior to anaesthesia, for example the Mallampati or Wilson index test (Mallampati 1985; Wilson 1988). The Mallampati score, based on the view of the soft palate when the patient opens their mouth, is the most widely used predictor of difficult intubation; but this and other prediction tests have been shown to have low positive predictive values for difficult intubation (Shiga 2005).

Patients who are admitted to ICU and the emergency department may differ from elective patients scheduled for general anaesthesia. Many patients are admitted to ICU or emergency department because of vulnerable airways, for example due to major trauma requiring cervical spine protection, airway swelling, direct airway trauma or lung injury, major head and neck surgery or infection. In the emergency department airway management may need to be provided at very short notice by critical care teams without the presence of an anaesthetist (Cook 2011).

 

Descripton of intervention and how it might work

Alternative devices, such as videolaryngoscopes (VLS), rely on fibreoptic or digital technology to transmit an image from the tip of the laryngoscope to an eyepiece or monitor where it is viewed by the intubator. Of these devices, there are both flexible and rigid designs and the aim of their design is to assist in difficult intubations and to reduce difficulty, failure, trauma and other complications. For this review we are interested in the rigid videolaryngoscope which uses a blade to retract the soft tissues and transmits a video image to either a screen attached to the end of the handle or to a monitor. This enables a lighted view of the larynx without direct 'line of sight' and therefore could assist where difficulty is encountered (or predicted) with direct laryngoscopy.

The Cormack and Lehane score describes the intubator’s view of the larynx during laryngoscopy (Cormack 1984), with a score or 4 indicating a poor view and a score of 1 indicating a good view. Studies suggest that the use of videolaryngoscopes improves these visualization scores (for example use of a Storz V-Mac videolaryngoscope compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope in Kaplan 2006). Videolarngoscopes may therefore provide the possibility of more successful intubation for patients in whom direct laryngoscopy may be difficult. They may also be used following unsuccessful attempts to intubate with direct laryngoscopy.

 

Why it is important to do this review

Whilst the use of videolaryngoscopes may aid visualization, evidence is required to establish if this also equates with increased success of intubation with reduced complications. Recent non-Cochrane reviews of VLS models have concentrated on the impact on process measures, such as the view of the larynx, first time and overall intubation success rates and intubation time, and have concluded that there is limited evidence to support their use in tracheal intubation in unselected populations and in those with known or anticipated difficult direct laryngoscopy (Griesdale 2012; Healy 2012; Niforopoulou 2010). A review and meta-analysis of 17 studies of the Glidescope found advantages for non-expert intubators (Griesdale 2012).

No existing reviews have considered the use of VLS specifically in obese patients. The prevalence of obesity is increasing in both developed and developing countries (current figures: http://www.oecd.org/) and with this there is an increase in the number of obese patients requiring anaesthesia. It is important to establish whether videolaryngoscopy is a more effective technique for this patient group as well as for other selected and unselected groups.

We wish to update the non-Cochrane reviews above by focusing on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only and considering, where possible, patient relevant outcomes such as complications. We will aim to consider studies in both unselected and selected populations, and to include studies of obese participants. This will continue the work by the current authors with the published reviews 'Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients' (Nicholson 2013a) and 'Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia' (Nicholson 2013b).

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

Our primary objective is to assess whether the use of videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in adults requiring general anaesthesia for surgery reduces the risk of complications and failure compared to direct laryngoscopy. Our secondary aim is to assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, such as people with obesity.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies, including cluster and cross-over studies. We will not include simulation or manikin studies.

 

Types of participants

We will include trials of participants aged 16 years and over who require tracheal intubation during general anaesthesia. We will include participants scheduled for surgery as well as participants requiring tracheal intubation in the emergency department or ICU under general anaesthesia. We will include trials with unselected patient populations, those restricted to patients with known or predicted difficult laryngoscopy (for example Mallampati score III or IV or previous Cormack and Lehane score III or IV with direct laryngoscopy) and those restricted to patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2.  We will include trials restricted to patients with limited cervical mobility.

 

Types of interventions

We will include studies which compared the use of any model of videolaryngoscope with a direct laryngoscope using a Macintosh blade.

Designs of videolaryngoscopes will include those with and without a conduit as well as those that require the use of a stylet as part of their design. A list of potential models and manufacturers is given in Appendix 1. We will exclude optical stylets.

 

Types of outcome measures

Our primary outcomes are the potential serious complications arising from difficulties with intubation. We will include failed intubation with the first choice of device as a primary outcome. This is an important indicator of the success of an intubation technique. Failed intubation with the first device may not always result in an adverse consequence for the patient but it increases the risk of serious complications, especially in obese patients (Cook 2012). Other primary outcomes will include hypoxia and serious airway complications. However, we anticipate these outcomes might not be available in many eligible studies. Our secondary outcomes will include mortality as well as surrogate process markers for airway problems, such as the number of attempts. We will aim to also assess the impact on patient-reported measures of sore throat or hoarseness after surgery, and patient experience.

Outcomes will not form part of the study eligibility assessment. Studies that meet the participant, intervention and comparison criteria will be included in the review even if they report no relevant outcomes. We will attempt to contact authors to find out if data were collected on outcomes. If these are not available, the studies will be recorded in a separate category of eligible but no outcome data available.

 

Primary outcomes

  1. Failed intubation or change of device required
  2. Hypoxia between start of intubation and recovery from anaesthesia, either dichotomous data (episodes of arterial oxygen saturation < 90%) or continuous data (lowest or mean arterial oxygen saturation)

 

Secondary outcomes

  1. Mortality within 30 days of anaesthetic
  2. Serious respiratory complications (including aspiration) within 30 days of anaesthetic
  3. Laryngeal or airway trauma – including any one of damage to vocal cords, bleeding or dental injury
  4. Patient-reported sore throat or hoarseness - both early (within two hours of anaesthetic) and late (within 48 hours of anaesthetic)
  5. Proportion of successful first attempts at tracheal intubation
  6. Number of attempts for tracheal intubation
  7. Total time for tracheal intubation and commencement of ventilation
  8. Difficulty of tracheal intubation - assessed by intubator or observer, using a locally derived or validated difficulty scale
  9. Improved visualization of the larynx as measured on a validated scale (such as Cormack and Leharne (Cormack 1984); POGO (percentage of glottic opening) scale (Levitan 1998; Yentis 1998); or Cook 2000)

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We will search for eligible trials in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, latest issue), MEDLINE via Ovid (1970 to present) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to present). We will apply the Cochrane highly sensitive filter for randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We will also search the trial registers such as www.clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platfrom (http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/en/) for ongoing trials. Our search strategy for MEDLINE is presented in Appendix 2. We will adapt our MEDLINE search strategy for searching other databases. We will search using both MeSH headings (or equivalent structured vocabulary in other databases) and free text.

We will include any publication that reports study data, including abstracts, letters and articles. We will not use any restriction on language of publication.

 

Searching other resources

We will undertake forward and backward citation tracing for key review articles and eligible articles identified from the electronic resources. We will contact investigators known to be involved in previous studies to enquire about ongoing or unpublished studies.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Results of the searches will be collated and duplicates removed. The selection of eligible articles will take place in two stages.

All titles and abstracts will be screened by two authors (Sharon Lewis (SL) and one other) to remove studies that are very unlikely to be eligible. A pilot of 100 titles will be performed before all titles are reviewed in order to clarify criteria for discarding articles at this stage. If no abstract is available but the title is possibly relevant, the full text of the article will be obtained.

When all titles and abstracts have been screened, the full texts of potentially relevant titles will be reviewed by two of the four investigators and recorded on the study eligibility form (a draft is included in Appendix 3). A pilot of 10 papers will be read and then the investigators will meet to compare results and modify the form as required. All potentially relevant papers will then be read and the two investigators will meet to compare results. Differences that cannot be resolved will be referred to Tim Cook (TC) or Andrew Smith (AS). We will record the numbers of papers retrieved and exclusions at each stage, with reasons provided for those reviewed in full text, in a PRISMA flowchart. Details of ineligible papers which are well-known or might appear to be eligible will be summarized in the 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table.

 

Data extraction and management

Data will be extracted from eligible studies by two investigators using a paper extraction form (Appendix 3). This form will be reviewed after data from the first three papers have been entered, and modified as required. If there are duplicate publications from the same study, we will create a composite dataset from all the eligible publications.

If relevant information or data are not available in the paper, we will contact the lead author to request additional details. We will resolve disagreements by discussion and, if necessary, consultation with TC or AS.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of study design and extent of potential bias (Higgins 2011). We will consider the following domains:

  1. sequence generation;
  2. allocation concealment;
  3. blinding of participants, personnel and outcomes assessors; incomplete outcome data; and
  4. selective outcomes reporting.

It will not be possible for the anaesthetist or intubator to be blinded to the intervention in this research question and, similarly, it will be difficult for the assessors of outcomes during intubation to be unaware of the allocation of the patient. Outcomes assessed during or after the operation, such as airway trauma or respiratory complications, could be assessed by staff other than the intubator who were unaware of the laryngoscopy device. It will be feasible for the asleep patient not to know the device used, which may be important for patient-reported outcomes, such as sore throat.

 

Other sources of bias

We will pay particular attention to sources of funding and the role of manufacturers and document this information in the 'Characteristics of included studies' table. If a study is sponsored or supported by a manufacturer we will attempt to determine the extent of the manufacturer's involvement and whether there is any evidence of selective outcome reporting or other bias. We will review the original protocol of the trial, if this is available, to identify any changes to procedure or missing outcome data that may indicate bias. However, sponsorship by a manufacturer will not be equated necessarily with high risk of bias without other indications. We may undertake sensitivity analyses to assess whether overall results are altered when studies with industry support are omitted.

Cluster designs may be used in this topic, with the anaesthetist, operating theatre or hospital being the unit of randomization. For any cluster-randomized trials that we include, we will pay particular attention to baseline characteristics of the patients and the expertise of the anaesthetist. Skill of the intubator is an important confounder and needs to be addressed by randomization.

Cross-over trials, if we find any, will be included only for certain outcomes related to success rate of intubation. These can be assessed in a cross-over design in which an intubator uses both methods sequentially. Order of insertion must be randomized to prevent familiarity with the airway on the second intubation affecting results. Since many of our outcomes are measured after the operation is completed they cannot be assessed in a cross-over design. 

A risk of bias table will be completed for each included study and will be part of the data extraction form. For each outcome, risk of bias assessments will be summarized for each domain in risk of bias graphs and figures, and across all domains in a 'Summary of findings' table.

 

Measures of treatment effect

The outcomes in this review are mainly dichotomous outcomes (mortality, complications, successful first attempt, failed intubation). For these dichotomous outcomes we will seek to enter totals and numbers of events within each randomization group into RevMan 5.2 and calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For time-to-event data, such as mortality, hazard ratios may be the most appropriate effect measure so we may use the generic variance option in RevMan 5.2. We may also need to use odds or risk ratios if we are unable to extract or obtain the raw data of numbers and totals from a study, but we will not combine different outcome measures in the same meta-analysis. For continuous measures, such as time for intubation, mean differences will be calculated. Some outcomes will be recorded in short ordinal scales, such as number of attempts, pain ratings for sore throat, or experience of intubator. These will be converted to dichotomous outcomes where appropriate.

 

Unit of analysis issues

For any cluster trials included in the review, we will extract data directly from the publication only if the analysis used accounts for the cluster design with a method such as multi-level modelling or generalized estimating equations. If these adjustments are not made within the report, we will undertake approximate analyses by recalculating standard errors or sample sizes based on the design effect. The resulting effect estimates and their standard errors will be analysed using the generic inverse variance method in RevMan.

We may include studies that report more than one comparison, for example groups allocated to two designs of videolaryngoscopes compared to a direct laryngoscopy group. This will not be a problem if we present these results in different comparisons. As we plan to use an amalgamated comparison group, initially at least, we need to address this issue and will divide the control group if data allow or combine the groups into a single pair-wise comparison (section 16.5.4 of Higgins 2011).

 

Dealing with missing data

We will contact authors to request any missing outcome data. If this is unsuccessful we will perform sensitivity analyses to compare the effects of complete case analysis, worst case scenario and last observation carried forward options on the results of individual studies and any meta-analyses. 

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We expect that the findings for any given outcome may differ between the studies included in the review. This heterogeneity may be due to:

  1. BMI > 30 kg/m2, and degree of obesity;
  2. anticipated difficulty of airway, with measures such as Mallampti score;
  3. expertise of intubator, VLS device used e.g. Glidescope or Pentax;
  4. urgency of intubation: emergency versus elective; or
  5. site of intubation: in operating theatre, emergency department, ICU.

We will assess heterogeneity using Chi2 and I2 statistics. Important heterogeneity (Chi2 P < 0.1 or I2 > 50%) will be investigated using subgroup analyses.

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We will examine funnel plots to assess the potential for publication bias if we have 10 or more studies reporting on a particular outcome. We will use visual assessment supplemented by the Egger’s test for asymmetry (Egger 1997). Heterogeneity between studies may lead to asymmetry and we will consider this possibility when reviewing the results.  

In addition to studies with no published results, reporting bias may be present within a study with data on some outcomes collected but not reported. Where a report or the study protocol suggests outcomes have not been reported, we will contact the study author to request outcome data.

 

Data synthesis

We will attempt meta-analysis for outcomes for which we have comparable effect measures from more than one study and where measures of heterogeneity indicate that pooling of results is appropriate. An I2 value of > 80% would argue against an overall estimate being presented. Our choice of a fixed-effect or random-effects statistical model for any meta-analysis will be influenced by the study characteristics, such as precise method of intubation, expertise of intubator and study size. Mantel-Haenszel models will be used where possible for most dichotomous outcomes but we may need to use the inverse variance method for some outcomes.

We will initially combine all designs of VLS and all population types, where appropriate, before dividing the data by VLS design and unselected and selected groups.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We will consider whether the success, speed and complication rate of intubation using a VLS differs for:

  1. different designs of VLS;
  2. obese and non-obese patients, anticipated or known difficult laryngoscopy;
  3. different sites of intubation: in operating theatre, emergency department, ICU; and
  4. experienced and inexperienced intubator.

 

Sensitivity analysis

We will undertake sensitivity analyses to explore the potential impact of missing data as described in the Dealing with missing data section. We will also carry out analyses stratified by risk of bias and we will model the potential impact of unpublished data on the overall effect estimates we obtain.

 

Summary of findings    [Explanations]

We will use the principles of the GRADE system to give an overall assessment of the evidence relating to each of the following outcomes (Guyatt 2008).

  1. Hypoxia between one minute before induction to recovery.
  2. Serious respiratory complications (including aspiration and lower respiratory tract infection) within 30 days of anaesthetic.
  3. Mortality within 30 days of anaesthetic.
  4. Failed intubation or change of laryngoscopy device required.
  5. Number of attempts for tracheal intubation.
  6. Total time for tracheal intubation and commencement of ventilation.

The GRADE approach incorporates risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of the data, precision of effect estimates and risk of publication bias to give an overall measure of how confident we can be that our estimate of effect is correct. SL and one other author will independently use GRADEpro software to create a 'Summary of findings' table for each outcome. Any discrepancies will be discussed and if needed referred to AS or TC for a final decision.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

We would like to thank Rodrigo Cavallazz (content editor), Cathal Walsh (Statistical editor), Davide Cattano, Joshua Atkins (peer reviewers) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this protocol for the systematic review.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Appendix 1. Example manufacturers of videolaryngoscopes and stylets

  1. Storz V-MAC, Storz C-MAC and Storz C-Mac D blade (Karl Storz GmbH & Co KG, Tuttlingen, Germany).
  2. McGrath Series 5 and McGrath Mac (Aircraft Medical Limited, Edinburgh, UK).
  3. Glidescope Video Laryngoscope (Verathon Medical Inc, Bothell, WA, USA).
  4. Pentax Airway scope (Pentax_AWS, Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark).
  5. Airtraq (Prodol Meditec S.A.,Vizcaya, Spain). Bullard (Circon ACMI, Stamford, CT, USA).
  6. Venner AP Advance (Intervent Direct, Buckinghamshire, UK). King Vision (Kingsystems, IN, USA).
  7. Vividtrac (Vivid Medical Inc, CA, USA). CoPilot VL (Magaw Medical, TX, USA).
  8. Disposable videolaryngoscope (Anatech Medical Ltd, New Zealand).
  9. Ue scope (Taizhou Hanchuang Medical Apparatus Technology Co Ltd, Taizhou, China).

 

Appendix 2. MEDLINE search strategy - via Ovid

1. (video?laryngoscop* or ((video or indirect) adj3 laryngoscop*) or Airtraq or Bullard or Pentax or Glidescope or McGrath or Storz or Venner or King Vision or Vividtrac or CoPilot VL or UE scope).mp.
2. ((randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or randomized.ab. or placebo.ab. or drug therapy.fs. or randomly.ab. or trial.ab. or groups.ab.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
3. 1 and 2

 

Appendix 3. Study eligibility and data extraction form

 

1.     General Information

 


Date form completed (dd/mm/yyyy)     

Name/ID of person extracting data    

 

Report title

(title of paper/ abstract/ report that data are extracted from)
     

 

Report ID

(ID for this paper/ abstract/ report)
     

 

Study ID

(surname of first author and year first full  report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001) 

Report IDs of  other reports of this study

(e.g. duplicate publications, follow-up studies)

Reference details   

Report author contact details       

Publication type

(e.g. full report, abstract, letter)
     

 

Study funding sources

(including role of manufacturers in study report)
     

 

Possible conflicts of interest

(for study authors)
     

 



 

2.     Study Eligibility


Study CharacteristicsEligibility criteriaYesNoUnclearLocation in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)






Type of studyRandomized Controlled Trial     





Controlled Clinical Trial

(quasi-randomized trial & cluster-randomized)
     





Cross-over trial

(both interventions in patients- order randomized)
 






Participants

 
Adults > 16 years undergoing GA in elective, emergency, ICU setting or out-of-hospital      






Types of intervention and comparisonComparison of:        




tracheal intubation with videolaryngoscope




With:   




Direct laryngoscopy






Types of outcome measures    Details of outcomes & location in text






Failed intubation or change of laryngoscope required






 Hypoxia between induction and full recovery. 






Aspiration

 Lower respiratory tract infection within 30 days of anaesthetic. 






 Mortality within 30 days of anaesthetic 






 Patient-reported sore throat or hoarseness 






 Patient -reported experience of awake intubation 






Proportion of successful first tracheal intubation






Number of attempts for tracheal intubation






Total time for tracheal intubation and commencement of ventilation.






Difficulty of tracheal intubation






Improved visualization of the larynx






Outcomes are not part of the eligibility criteria – so a study which meets design, participant and intervention criteria is included.

INCLUDE EXCLUDE 


Reason for exclusion      



 DO NOT PROCEED IF STUDY EXCLUDED FROM REVIEW

 

3.     Population and setting


 Description

Include comparative information for each group (i.e. intervention and controls) if available
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)



Population description

(Type of surgical procedure, emergency/elective, department )
          



Definition of any selected population groups

(E.g. BMI ranges for obesity, difficult airway assessments)
  



Setting

(including location and social context)
          



Inclusion criteria          



Exclusion criteria          



Method/s of recruitment of participants          



Informed consent obtained

 
         

Yes     No    Unclear
          



 

4.     Methods


 Descriptions as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)



Aim of study           



Design (e.g. parallel, crossover, cluster)          



Unit of allocation

(by individuals, cluster/ groups or body parts)
          



Start date          



End date  

 
    



Total study duration           



Ethical approval needed/ obtained for study         

Yes     No    Unclear
          



 

5.     Participants

Provide overall data and, if available, comparative data for each intervention or comparison group. 


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Total no. randomized

(or total pop. at start of study for NRCTs)
          

Clusters

(if applicable, no., type, no. people per cluster)
          

Baseline imbalances          

Withdrawals and exclusions

(if not provided below by outcome)
          

Age          

Sex          

Race/Ethnicity          

Type and duration of surgery

(e.g. peripheral or abdominal)
          

Type of ventilation

(spontaneous or mechanical, airway pressures used)
          

Training and seniority of intubator  

Sedation and neuromuscular blockade used

Indicators of difficult airway

(Mallampti score, history of sleep apnoea etc in each group)

Other relevant sociodemographics            

Subgroups measured            

Subgroups reported           



 

6.     Intervention groups

 

6.1 Intervention group


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Group name         

No. randomized to group           

Description of device

(name and manufacturer )
          

Method of insertion    

Co-interventions          



 

6.2 Comparison  group  - repeated as required


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Group name          

No. randomized to group           

Description of device

(name and manufacturer )
          

Method of insertion   

Co-interventions          



 

7.     Outcomes

 

7.1 Dichotomous outcomes such as mortality, complications, successful first attempt, failed intubation


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Outcome name

e.g. hypoxia during induction, failed intubation,  aspiration) 
      

Time points measured          

Time points reported          

Outcome definition (with diagnostic criteria if relevant)          

Person measuring/reporting          

Imputation of missing data
(e.g. assumptions made for ITT analysis)
          

Assumed risk estimate

(e.g. baseline or population risk noted  in Background)
          

Power          



 

7.2 Continuous outcomes  such as time for intubation, pain scales, experience of intubation.


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)



Outcome name

(number of attempts, pain)
      



Time points measured          



Time points reported          



Outcome definition (with diagnostic criteria if relevant)          



Person measuring/reporting          



Unit of measurement

(if relevant)
          



Scales: levels, upper and lower limits (indicate whether high  or low score is good)          



Is outcome/tool validated?         

Yes     No    Unclear
          

Imputation of missing data
(e.g. assumptions made for ITT analysis)
          



Assumed risk estimate

(e.g. baseline or population risk noted  in Background)
          



Power          



Notes:        

(cut-point to be used to convert to dichotomous if applicable and justification) 



 

8.     Results

 

8.1 Dichotomous outcomes  


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)



Comparison          



Outcome          



Subgroup
(Obese e.g.  25-30, 30-40, >40 kg/m2)
          



Timepoint
(specify whether from start or end of intervention)
          



ResultsInterventionComparison     


No. eventsNo. participantsNo. eventsNo. participants




                    






No. missing participants and reasons               




No. participants moved from other group and reasons               




Any other results reported  - such as OR, HR, RRs          



Unit of analysis (by individuals, cluster/groups or body parts)           



Statistical methods used and appropriateness of these methods (e.g. adjustment for correlation)          



Reanalysis required? (specify)         

Yes     No    Unclear
          




Reanalysis possible?         

Yes     No    Unclear
          




Reanalysed results          



 

8.2 Continuous outcomes


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)



Comparison          



Outcome          



Subgroup          



Timepoint
(specify whether from start or end of intervention)
          



Post-intervention or change from baseline?          



ResultsInterventionComparison 



MeanSD (or other variance)No. participantsMeanSD (or other variance)No. participants     






                              








No. missing participants and reasons               




No. participants moved from other group and reasons               




Any other results reported           



Unit of analysis

(individuals, cluster/ groups or body parts)
          



Statistical methods used and appropriateness of these methods (e.g. adjustment for correlation)          



Reanalysis required? (specify)         

Yes     No    Unclear
          




Reanalysis possible?         

Yes     No    Unclear
          




Reanalysed results          



 

9.     Risk of Bias assessment


DomainRisk of bias

 
Support for judgement

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Low riskHigh riskUnclear

Random sequence generation

(selection bias)
          

Allocation concealment

(selection bias) 
          

Blinding of participants and personnel

(performance bias)
Outcome group: respiratory complications & mortality          

 Outcome group: hypoxia, trauma      

 Outcome group: patient reported outcomes      

  Outcome group: failed intubation, first attempt success and time to intubate  

Blinding of outcome assessment

(detection bias)
Outcome group: respiratory complications & mortality

     
     

 Outcome group: hypoxia, trauma           

 Outcome group: patient reported outcomes      

  Outcome group: failed intubation, first attempt success and time to intubate   

Incomplete outcome data

(attrition bias) 
Outcome group: respiratory complications & mortality

     
     

 Outcome group: hypoxia, trauma       

 Outcome group: patient reported outcomes      

  Outcome group: failed intubation, first attempt success and time to intubate   

Selective outcome reporting?

(reporting bias)
          

Other bias

(baseline characteristics for cluster-randomized, carryover for crossover trials) 
          



 

10. Applicability


Have important populations been excluded from the study? (consider disadvantaged populations, and possible differences in the intervention effect)         

Yes     No    Unclear
     

Is the intervention likely to be aimed at disadvantaged groups? (e.g. lower socioeconomic groups)         

Yes     No    Unclear
     

Does the study directly address the review question?

(any issues of partial or indirect applicability)
         

Yes     No    Unclear
     



 

11. Other information


 Description as stated in report/paper

 
Location in text

(pg & ¶/fig/table)

Key conclusions of study authors           

References to other relevant studies           

Correspondence required for further study information (from whom, what and when)     



 

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

Sharon R Lewis (SL), Amanda Nicholson (AN), Tim M Cook (TC), Andrew F Smith (AS)

Conceiving the review: AS

Co-ordinating the review: SL

Undertaking manual searches: SL and AN

Screening search results: SL and AN

Organizing retrieval of papers: SL

Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: SL and AN

Appraising quality of papers: SL and AN

Abstracting data from papers: SL and AN

Writing to authors of papers for additional information: SL

Providing additional data about papers: SL and AN

Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: SL and AN

Data management for the review: SL

Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.2): SL

RevMan statistical data: AN and SL

Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: AN

Interpretation of data: SL, TC and AN

Statistical inferences: AN, TC and AS

Writing the review: all authors

Securing funding for the review: AS

Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: N/A

Guarantor for the review (one author): AS

Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: SL

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

Amanda Nicholson: from March to August 2011, AN worked for the Cardiff Research Consortium, which provides research and consultancy services to the pharmaceutical industry. Cardiff Research Consortium has no connection with AN's work with The Cochrane Collaboration. AN's husband has small direct holdings in several drug and biotech companies as part of a wider balanced share portfolio. Also see Sources of support.

Tim M Cook: TC has previously been paid by Intavent Orthofix and the LMA company, several years ago, for lecturing and his department has been given free or at cost airway equipment for evaluation or research from numerous airway companies. (This company manufactures and distributes a videolaryngoscope.) He (or his family) has no financial investments or ownership of any such company that he is aware of. No other sources of conflicts of interest.

Sharon R Lewis: see Sources of support.

Andrew F Smith: see Sources of support.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

 

External sources

  • NIHR Cochrane Collaboration Programme Grant: Enhancing the safety, quality and productivity of perioperative care. Project Ref: 10/4001/04, UK., UKThis grant funds the work of SRL, AN, AFS and PA performed for this review., Other.

References

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Appendices
  8. Contributions of authors
  9. Declarations of interest
  10. Sources of support
  11. Additional references
Adams 2000
  • Adams JP, Murphy PG. Obesity in anaesthesia and intensive care. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2000; Vol. 85, issue 1:91-108.
Caplan 1990
  • Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 1990; Vol. 72, issue 5:828-33. [PUBMED: 2339799]
Cook 2000
  • Cook TM. A new practical classification of laryngeal view. Anaesthesia 2000; Vol. 55, issue 3:274-9. [PUBMED: 10671848]
Cook 2011
  • Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011; Vol. 106, issue 5:617-31.
Cook 2012
  • Cook TM, MacDougall-Davis SR. Complications and failure of airway management. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2012; Vol. 109 Suppl 1:68-85.
Cormack 1984
  • Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984; Vol. 39, issue 11:1105-11. [PUBMED: 6507827]
Crosby 1998
  • Crosby ET, Cooper RM, Douglas MJ, Doyle DJ, Hung OR, Labrecque P, et al. The unanticipated difficult airway with recommendations for management. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1998; Vol. 45, issue 8:757-76. [PUBMED: 9793666]
Egger 1997
  • Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research edition) 1997;315(7109):629-34. [PUBMED: 9310563]
Griesdale 2012
  • Griesdale DG, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi P. Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie 2012;59(1):41-52.
Guyatt 2008
  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ (Clinical research edition) 2008;336(7651):995-8. [PUBMED: 18456631]
Healy 2012
  • Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, Kheterpal S. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiology 2012; Vol. 12:32. [PUBMED: 23241277]
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Juvin 2003
  • Juvin P, Lavaut E, Dupont H, Lefevre P, Demetriou M, Dumoulin JL, et al. Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2003; Vol. 97, issue 2:595-600. [PUBMED: 12873960]
Kaplan 2006
  • Kaplan MB, Hagberg CA, Ward DS, Brambrink A, Chhibber AK, Heidegger T, et al. Comparison of direct and video-assisted views of the larynx during routine intubation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2006; Vol. 18, issue 5:357-62. [PUBMED: 16905081]
King 1990
  • King TA, Adams AP. Failed tracheal intubation. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1990; Vol. 65, issue 3:400-14. [PUBMED: 2223369]
Levitan 1998
  • Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Academic Emergency Medicine 1998; Vol. 5, issue 9:919-23. [PUBMED: 9754506]
Lundstrom 2009
  • Lundstrom LH, Moller AM, Rosenstock C, Astrup G, Wetterslev J. High body mass index is a weak predictor for difficult and failed tracheal intubation: a cohort study of 91,332 consecutive patients scheduled for direct laryngoscopy registered in the Danish Anesthesia Database. Anesthesiology 2009; Vol. 110, issue 2:266-74. [PUBMED: 19194154]
Malhotra 2008
  • Malhotra A, Hillman D. Obesity and the lung: 3. Obesity, respiration and intensive care. Thorax 2008; Vol. 63, issue 10:925-31. [PUBMED: 18820119]
Mallampati 1985
  • Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, Desai SP, Waraksa B, Freiberger D, et al. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Canadian Anaesthetists' Society journal 1985;32(4):429-34. [PUBMED: 4027773]
Marley 2005
  • Marley RA, Hoyle B, Ries C. Perianesthesia respiratory care of the bariatric patient. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing 2005; Vol. 20, issue 6:404-31; quiz 432-4.
Nicholson 2013a
  • Nicholson A, Cook TM, Lewis SR, Smith AF. Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010320]
Nicholson 2013b
  • Nicholson A, Cook TM, Lewis SR, Smith AF. Tracheal intubation with a flexible intubation scope versus other intubation techniques for obese patients requiring general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010320]
Niforopoulou 2010
  • Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2010; Vol. 54, issue 9:1050-61. [PUBMED: 20887406]
RevMan 5.2
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,, 2012.
Rose 1994
  • Rose DK, Cohen MM. The airway: problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1994; Vol. 41, issue 5 Pt 1:372-83. [PUBMED: 8055603]
Shiga 2005
  • Shiga T, Wajima Z, Inoue T, Sakamoto A. Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology. 2005/07/30 2005; Vol. 103, issue 2:429-37. [PUBMED: 16052126]
Wilson 1988
  • Wilson ME, Spiegelhalter D, Robertson JA, Lesser P. Predicting difficult intubation. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1988/08/01 1988; Vol. 61, issue 2:211-6. [PUBMED: 3415893]
Woodall 2011
  • Woodall NM, Cook TM. National census of airway management techniques used for anaesthesia in the UK: first phase of the Fourth National Audit Project at the Royal College of Anaesthetists. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011; Vol. 106, issue 2:266-71.
Yentis 1998
  • Yentis SM, Lee DJ. Evaluation of an improved scoring system for the grading of direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1998; Vol. 53, issue 11:1041-4. [PUBMED: 10023271]