FindTrial
Sign In

Comparison of conventional laryngoscope with video laryngoscope.

To evaluate and compare McGrath MAC video laryngoscope, Truview video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2018/05/014150
Enrollment
120
Registered
2018-05-25
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: null- Those requiring surgery

Interventions

Intervention1: McGrath MAC video laryngoscope: To be compared with other laryngoscope Control Intervention1: Truview video laryngoscope, Machintosh laryngoscope: Comparison of clinical outcomes of all

Sponsors

Gurleen Kaur
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. 120 patients of either sex 2. Age 20-70 3. ASA grade 1 and II 4. MPG I, II, III and IV

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Patient refusal 2. Age 70 years 3. ASA III and IV 4. Patients with pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents ( e.g. pregnancy, diabetes )

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
1. Duration of laryngoscopy and intubation 2. Cormack â?? Lehane grading. 3. Evaluate ease of intubation.Timepoint: 0-10 minutes after intubation—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Number of attempts and any optimisation manoeuvres required for intubation. 2. Hemodynamic response. 3. Any trauma caused due to laryngoscopy.Timepoint: During same time frame—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactGurleen Kaur

University of Jammu.

sunaynaarnav@yahoo.com9419160705

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026