Comparison of intubation in a box which can contain the aerosol using video laryngoscope versus conventional laryngoscope and conventional laryngoscope

Comparison of aerosol box intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2020/07/026663

Enrollment

Registered

2020-07-17

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: R688- Other general symptoms and signs

Interventions

Intervention1: Direct laryngoscopy group: Direct laryngoscopy will be performed and patients will be intubated Control Intervention1: C-MAC videolaryngoscope group: Laryngoscopy will be performed with

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: ASA 1 & 2 patients of age group18-60 years presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation will be included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients with a difficult airway, obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, valvular heart diseases, pregnancy, raised intracranial and intraocular pressures will be excluded from the study.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The primary objective of the study is to compare the ease of oral intubation with Câ??MAC video laryngoscope and by direct laryngoscopy, when aerosol box is usedTimepoint: Up to 15 minutes after intubation	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Comparison of the incidence of airway loss, hemodynamic changes, number of attempts and time required for intubationTimepoint: Up to 15 minutes after intubation	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactNitu PV

Amrita Institute of medical Sciences

nituveesundeep@gmail.com09495962020

Outcome results

None listed

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