glidescope® versus c-mac® video laryngoscopy in pediatric intubation. does time matter?

Background: the emergence of video laryngoscopy in the management of pediatric airways has been invaluable as it has been known that these patients are prone to airway complications. video laryngoscopes are proven to improve glottic view in both normal and difficult airways in pediatric patients. the time taken to intubate using these devices is inconsistent. objectives: this study was designed to compare the time to intubate using two common video laryngoscopes, c-mac®, and glidescope®, aimed at pediatric patients age 3 - 12 years old. methods: arandomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 asa i or ii patients, aged 3 - 12 years old who underwent elective surgery using endotracheal tube. they were divided into group 1 patients who were intubated using c-mac® video laryngoscope versus group 2 patients who were intubated with glidescope® video laryngoscope. laryngoscopists were all anesthetists with experience in both c-mac® and glidescope® intubation. time to intubate and intubation attempts were measured. any extra maneuver, airway complications, and laryngoscopist satisfaction scores were also recorded. results: total time to intubate was significantly longer in glidescope® group than in c-mac® group (p < 0.001). both devices managed to achieve excellent glottic views. the first pass attempt success rate was similar between both devices. there was no difference betweenrequirement of extramaneuversto assist intubations. therewerealsonoadverse events associated with all the intubations. the satisfaction score of anesthetists was comparable to each other. conclusions: eventhoughintubation time using glidescope® is longer, both devices give excellent glottic view, comparable success intubation, and anesthetists satisfaction score.