Can you compare the views of videolaryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope?


  • A response to a previously published article or letter can be submitted to the Online Correspondence section at Please note that a selection of this correspondence will be reproduced (possibly in modified form) in the journal. All correspondence intended for publication in Anaesthesia should be addressed to Dr Steve Yentis, Editor-in-Chief, and submitted as an email attachment to Copy should be prepared in the usual style of the Correspondence section. Authors must follow the advice about references and other matters contained in the Guidance for Authors at Correspondence presented in any other style or format will be returned to the author for revision. All correspondence submissions should be accompanied by a completed Author Declaration Form which can be accessed via a link under ‘Covering letter’ in the Guidance for Authors (as above). The completed Author Declaration Form should be sent either by e-mail with the submission or by fax to (0)207 681 1008.

  • Visit the Anaesthesia Correspondence website at and comment on any article or letter in this issue of the Journal.

Teoh et al. [1] are to be applauded for their efforts in comparing three video-laryngoscopes (the Pentax Airway Scope (Pentax AWS; Pentax, Tokyo, Japan); the C-MAC™ (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany); and the Glidescope® (Verathon, Bothell, WA, USA)) with the standard Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation.

Quite rightly, the primary outcome of the study was time to successful intubation, but we would like to comment on some of the secondary outcome measurements. The authors compared the Cormack and Lehane grade obtained using the four different laryngoscopes, but we would argue that the views obtained are not comparable. The Cormack and Lehane [2] view is defined as the view obtained during direct laryngoscopy. This is therefore the view obtained by aligning the oral, pharyngeal and laryngeal axes. With the videolaryngoscopes, the image is obtained from a camera positioned at a variable distance from the tip of the blade; in the Glidescope (size 4) this is 5.5 cm from the tip, whereas in the C-MAC it is 3.5 cm and it is approximately 3 cm in the Pentax Airway Scope. We would therefore argue that the different views are not statistically comparable, with the Macintosh laryngoscope or with each videolaryngoscope.

We were also interested in the use of manoeuvres to aid intubation, in particular the use of external laryngeal pressure. The authors did not state whether their assistants were also able to see the screen during external laryngeal pressure, which was required in 31% of cases with the C-MAC and 11% with the Glidescope. One of the authors of this letter has previously suggested that if the assistant performing the external manipulation was allowed to see the view obtained on the screen in the videolaryngoscope groups, then they may have improved the view obtained further, as the direct feedback obtained from the videolaryngoscope allows the assistant to provide a much better and coordinated view for the anaesthetist during external laryngeal manipulation [3]. If the assistant was allowed to see the view from the videolaryngoscopes, then could this group be compared to the Macintosh group (which required 38 ‘blind’ external laryngeal manipulations)? This would also affect the intubation time and ease of tracheal tube intubation in those patients who required external laryngeal pressure, possibly improving the times and scores, respectively.

No external funding and no competing interests declared. Previously posted at the Anaesthesia Correspondence website: