-
Study aim
-
Determining and comparing the direct laryngoscopy versus Glidescope for the purpose of laryngoscopy management and intubation in candidates of caesarean delivery with general anesthesia
-
Design
-
A randomized, double-blinding clinical trial, with the parallel groups, Phase 2 on 90 patients
-
Settings and conduct
-
In this randomized double-blind clinical trial, 90 eligible patients referred to Beheshti Hospital in Isfahan will be included in the study and randomly divided into two groups. The first group will undergo direct intubation and the second group will be intubated by GlideScope video. Then, hemodynamic parameters of patients, laryngoscopy time, and the number of attempts for intubation between the two groups will be compared.
-
Participants/Inclusion and exclusion criteria
-
Inclusion criteria consisted of pregnant women that were candidates for cesarean section under general anesthesia, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of one or two, the gravidity of one or two, and Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS) score of equal or less than 5.
exclusion criteria consisted of the thyromental distance (TMD) was less than 6 cm, the neck circumference (NC) was equal or more than 43 cm, patients with increased intracranial pressure, any airway pathology, cervical spinal cord injury, and requirement for rapid induction.
-
Intervention groups
-
The first intervention group: Patients in the first group underwent intubation using the direct Macintosh laryngoscope with Macintosh blade No. 3.
The second intervention group: Patients in the second group underwent intubation using GlideScope video laryngoscope.
-
Main outcome variables
-
Hemodynamic parameters; Laryngoscopy time; Number of attempts for intubation