Influence of videolaryngoscopy using McGrath Mac™ on the need for a helper to perform intubation during general anaesthesia: A multicentre randomised video - no-video trial

Patients were randomised into two groups: a Video group (screen activated) and a No-Video group (screen hidden). Primary and secondary outcome measures: The main outcome was the need for help for the anaesthesiologist or the nurse anaesthetist in performing tracheal intubation, the sequence being video recorded. Secondary outcomes included the ease of intubation (intubation difficulty scale, Cormack and Lehane grade, percentage of glottic opening scale score, use of alternative techniques, duration, oxygen desaturation, especially).

Other outcomes included the cooperation between members of the anaesthesiology team, the proportion of patients suffering from postoperative hoarseness or sore throat, and other adverse events. Results:. Requirement for assistance was not decreased in the Video group: 36.1% [95% CI 27.9 to 44.9] versus 45.5% [95% 36.5 to 54.7] in the No-Video group (p=0.124).

Intubation difficulty scale was lower in the Video group (p=0.009); glottis visualization (Cormack and Lehane score and glottic opening score) was better in the Video group (p<0.001). Duration of intubation was similar between groups. Oxygen desaturation or hypotension requiring treatment during the intubation period and postoperative complications (hoarseness or sore throat) were observed similarly in both groups.

No other adverse event occurred. Conclusion: In patients without risk of difficulty in airway management, videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the requirement for assistance to perform intubation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02926144