Comparison of Glidescope Core, C-MAC Miller and conventional Miller laryngoscope for difficult airway management by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in a simulated Pierre Robin sequence: A randomized crossover manikin study

Background Video laryngoscopy is an effective tool in the management of difficult pediatric airway. However, evidence to guide the choice of the most appropriate video laryngoscope (VL) for airway management in pediatric patients with Pierre Robin syndrome (PRS) is insufficient. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the Glidescope(R) Core((TM)) with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC(R) with a nonangulated Miller blade (C-MAC(R) Miller) and a conventional Miller laryngoscope when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in simulated Pierre Robin sequence. Methods Forty-three anesthetists with limited experience and forty-three anesthetists with extensive experience participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed endotracheal intubation with the Glidescope(R) Core((TM)) with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC(R) with a Miller blade and the conventional Miller laryngoscope. "Time to intubate" was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were "time to vocal cords", "time to ventilate", overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental trauma and subjective impressions. Results Both hyperangulated and nonangulated VLs provided superior intubation conditions. The Glidescope(R) Core((TM)) enabled the best glottic view, caused the least dental trauma and significantly decreased the "time to vocal cords". However, the failure rate of intubation was 14% with the Glidescope(R) Core((TM)), 4.7% with the Miller laryngoscope and only 2.3% with the C-MAC(R) Miller when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience. In addition, the "time to intubate", the "time to ventilate" and the number of optimization maneuvers were significantly increased using the Glidescope(R) Core((TM)). In the hands of anesthetists with limited previous experience, the failure rate was 11.6% with the Glidescope(R) Core((TM)) and 7% with the Miller laryngoscope. Using the C-MAC(R) Miller, the overall success rate increased to 100%. No differences in the "time to intubate" or "time to ventilate" were observed. Conclusions The nonangulated C-MAC(R) Miller facilitated correct placement of the endotracheal tube and showed the highest overall success rate. Our results therefore suggest that the C-MAC(R) Miller could be beneficial and may contribute to increased safety in the airway management of infants with PRS when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience.