Efficacy of Video Laryngoscopes Having Different Field of View in Adult Patients Undergoing Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i6.1492Keywords:
Airway Management, Orotracheal Intubation, Video Laryngoscope, C-MAC, McGrath, First-pass Success, Randomized Controlled Trial, Glottic Visualization, AnesthesiaAbstract
Background: Airway obstruction and failed tracheal intubation are major contributors to morbidity and mortality in surgical and critical care settings. Orotracheal intubation remains a cornerstone of airway management in both elective and emergency situations. Among various video laryngoscopes (VLs), the McGrath and C-MAC devices are widely used, but comparative data on their performance remains inconclusive from Pakistan. Aim: To compare the efficacy of McGrath and C-MAC video laryngoscopes in adult patients undergoing elective orotracheal intubation. Methodology: This single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Doctors Hospital and Medical Centre, Lahore from 20 March 2025 to 20 June 2025. Patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to IV, and scheduled for elective surgery requiring orotracheal intubation. Patients were randomly allocated to either the McGrath group (n = 50) or the C-MAC group (n = 50). The intubation was performed using standardized induction protocols. Primary outcome was the first-pass intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included number of attempts, glottic view, ease of intubation, hemodynamic responses, and occurrence of complications. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corp), with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: First-attempt success was significantly higher in the C-MAC group (92%) compared to the McGrath group (70%) (p = 0.006). Ease of intubation was also superior in the C-MAC group, with 86% of cases rated as ≥8 on the NRS versus 60% in the McGrath group (p = 0.003). Although overall success rates (C-MAC 98%, McGrath 92%) and complications (C-MAC 2%, McGrath 10%) differed, these were not statistically significant. Glottic visualization was marginally better with the C-MAC (Grade 1 view in 88% vs. 80%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.218). Hemodynamic parameters remained within safe ranges in both groups, with no significant intergroup variation. Conclusion: it demonstrated that the C-MAC video laryngoscope is associated with a significantly higher first-pass intubation success rate and greater ease of intubation compared to the McGrath in adult patients undergoing elective orotracheal intubation. Further research is warranted to assess their performance in difficult airway and emergency settings.
Downloads
References
Abhyankar, P., Sabharwal, N., Gupta, A., & Das, A. K. (2023). Comparative evaluation of C-MAC and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopes with Macintosh direct laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, 39(3), 422-428.
https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_451_21
Akbas, S., Ozkan, A. S., & Karaaslan, E. (2019). A comparison of McGrath MAC versus C-MAC Videolaryngoscopes in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care, 14(1), 25-33.
https://doi.org/10.1089/bari.2018.0052
CORMACK, R. S., & LEHANE, J. (1984). Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia, 39(11), 1105-1111.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb08932.x
Erkoç, S. K., GÜÇLÜ, Ç. Y., BÜYÜK, S., Bermede, O., Erkent, F. D., & Yilmaz, A. A. (2022). Comparison of C-MAC vs. McGrath video laryngoscopes on glottic exposure and endotracheal intubation success with stylet usage in obese patients. European Review for Medical & Pharmacological Sciences, 26(16).
https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/5763-5773.pdf
Gupta, A., Singh, P., Gupta, N., Kumar Malhotra, R., & Girdhar, K. K. (2021). Comparative efficacy of C‐MAC® Miller videolaryngoscope versus McGrath® MAC size ‘1’ videolaryngoscope in neonates and infants undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Anesthesia, 31(10), 1089-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14244
Gupta, N., Sarma, R., Vig, S., Kumar, V., Gupta, A., Mishra, S., & Bhatnagar, S. (2022). Comparison of C-MAC and McGrathMAC Videolaryngoscopes for intubation in patients with normal airway by donned anaesthesiologists using an intubation box during COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective, randomized study. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, 50(4), 255-260.
https://doi.org/10.5152/tjar.2021.21251
Ho, C., Chen, L., Hsu, W., Lin, T., Lee, M., & Lu, C. (2022). A comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for Nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(9), 2499.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092499
De Jong, A., Pouzeratte, Y., Laplace, A., Normanno, M., Rollé, A., Verzilli, D., Perrigault, P., Colson, P., Capdevila, X., Molinari, N., & Jaber, S. (2020). Macintosh Videolaryngoscope for intubation in the operating room: A comparative quality improvement project. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 132(2), 524-535.
https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000005031
Gupta, S., Kaur, G., Mehta, N., & Dhingra, J. (2020). Comparative evaluation of McGrath MAC, Truview video laryngoscopes and Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches, 14(1), 20.
https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_16_20
Korkut, S., Szarpak, L., Evrin, T., Smereka, J., Katipoğlu, B., & Gorczyca, D. (2019). Comparison of the McGrath MAC EMS Videolaryngoscope with a conventional laryngoscope for standard and difficult airway intubation: A randomized, cross-over, simulation trial. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(4), 211-217.
https://doi.org/10.4274/eajem.galenos.2019.02360
Kreutziger, J., Hornung, S., Harrer, C., Urschl, W., Doppler, R., Voelckel, W. G., & Trimmel, H. (2019). Comparing the McGrath Mac video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy for prehospital emergency intubation in air rescue patients: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial*. Critical Care Medicine, 47(10), 1362-1370.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003918
Kriege, M., Lang, P., Lang, C., Pirlich, N., Griemert, E., Heid, F., Wittenmeier, E., Schmidtmann, I., Schmidbauer, W., Jänig, C., Jungbecker, J., Kunitz, O., Strate, M., & Schmutz, A. (2021). Anaesthesia protocol evaluation of the videolaryngoscopy with the McGrath MAC and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in 1000 patients undergoing rapid sequence induction: The randomised multicentre LARA trial study protocol. BMJ Open, 11(10), e052977.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052977
Kriege, M., Lang, P., Lang, C., Schmidtmann, I., Kunitz, O., Roth, M., Strate, M., Schmutz, A., Vits, E., Balogh, O., & Jänig, C. (2024). A comparison of the McGrath videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in the operating theatre: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia, 79(8), 801-809.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16250
Kriege, M., Noppens, R. R., Turkstra, T., Payne, S., Kunitz, O., Tzanova, I., & Schmidtmann, I. (2023). A multicentre randomised controlled trial of the McGrathTM Mac videolaryngoscope versus conventional laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia, 78(6), 722-729.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15985
Sansone, P., Giaccari, L. G., Bonomo, A., Gargano, F., Aurilio, C., Coppolino, F., Passavanti, M. B., Pota, V., & Pace, M. C. (2023). Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope in tracheal intubation: An updated systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(19), 6168.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196168
Sukmono, B., Manggala, S. K., Auerkari, A. N., & Christina, B. (2022). Comparison of self-assembled video laryngoscope versus McGrath MAC®: A randomised controlled trial. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 66(5), 350-357.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_300_21
Witkam, R. L., Bruhn, J., Hoogerwerf, N., Koch, R. M., & Van Eijk, L. T. (2025). Combining a McGrath video laryngoscope and C-MAC video stylet for the endotracheal intubation of a patient with a laryngeal carcinoma arising from the anterior side of the epiglottis: A case report. Anesthesia Research, 2(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.3390/anesthres2010005
Yahagi, M., Omi, K., & Yaguchi, Y. (2025). A comparison of McGrath Mac, airway scope®, and AceScope® video laryngoscopes in novice healthcare providers: A randomized crossover simulation study. BMC Anesthesiology, 25(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03094-y
Zhang, J., Tan, L. Z., Toh, H., Foo, C. W., Wijeratne, S., Hu, H., & Seet, E. (2021). Comparing the first-attempt tracheal intubation success of the hyperangulated McGrath® X-blade vs the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope in patients with cervical immobilization: A two-centre randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 36(4), 1139-1145.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-021-00746-5
Zhu, H., Liu, J., Suo, L., Zhou, C., Sun, Y., & Jiang, H. (2019). A randomized controlled comparison of non-channeled King vision, McGrath MAC video laryngoscope and Macintosh direct laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations. BMC Anesthesiology, 19(1).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
