Incidence of Sore Throat With Traditional Intubation Blades or Glidescope Blade
Condition: Intratracheal Intubation; Laryngoscopes; Postoperative Care; Risk Assessment
MeSH terms: Pharyngitis
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The purpose in this study is to determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of
      postoperative sore throat when using the GlideScope™ versus a traditional intubation blade
      involving patients that are not anticipated to have a difficult airway.
    

Detailed description: 
      The goal of this study is to determine whether the use of the GlideScope™ video laryngoscope
      during intubation leads to a greater or lesser incidence of sore throat when compared to
      traditional laryngoscope blades used for intubation, such as the Macintosh or Miller blade.
      During postoperative checks by a board certified anesthesiologist at the Albany Medical
      Center (AMC) Hospital, it was noticed that patients who reported sore throat often required
      intubation with the GlideScope™. Standard of care at the AMC Hospital dictates that the
      Glidescope is used as a "rescue" device for failed direct laryngoscopy on a difficult airway;
      if traditional direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh or Miller blade cannot provide adequate
      laryngeal views, progression to a different airway device such as the Glidescope or
      fiberoptic scope is indicated. The initial attempt with direct laryngoscopy on a difficult
      airway often requires utilization of McGill forceps, which increases the chance of upper
      airway injury prior to the rescue attempt with the GlideScope. Consequently, it is difficult
      to determine whether patients' reports of post-operative sore throat are caused by the
      irritation inflicted by the multiple laryngoscopic attempts required in patients where the
      Glidescope was needed as a rescue method, or whether it is due to the actual utilization of
      the Glidescope itself.

      Previous studies have shown that the use of a GlideScope™ decreases the likelihood of upper
      airway injury by decreasing the lower mean force applied during laryngoscopy when compared to
      a Macintosh laryngoscope; however, this study was done using manikins and it is not known
      whether this result can be translated to a patient oriented outcome. Another study compared
      the GlideScope™ to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Their results suggested
      that the incidence of postoperative moderate or severe sore throat was significantly reduced
      with use of the GlideScope™ videolaryngoscope. However, other studies have shown increased
      incidence of postoperative sore throat with Glidescope usage when compared to other
      videolaryngoscopes and conventional Macintosh laryngoscope as a primary laryngoscopy method.
      In light of these studies, none have attempted a direct comparison of a Glidescope with
      conventional Macintosh/Miller laryngoscope blades with incidence of sore throat as a primary
      outcome of interest.

      The purpose in this study is to determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of
      postoperative sore throat when using the GlideScope™ versus a traditional intubation blade
      involving patients that are not anticipated to have a difficult airway. Exclusion of patients
      with difficult airways allows us to perform direct comparisons with the Glidescope and
      conventional direct laryngoscopy without compromising standard of care or increasing patient
      risk, which will be determined by the use of standard of care preoperative exams.
    

Intervention name(s): Macintosh/Miller Laryngoscope; Glidescope Laryngoscope
Intervention type(s): Device; Device
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single (Participant)
Primary purpose: Treatment
Keywords: Sore Throat; Intubation; Laryngoscopy; Anesthesiology; Perioperative; Airway Management