Comparisation of king vision video laryngoscope vs mccoy laryngoscope for intubation with immobilized cervical spine

A prospective randomized study to compare King Vision video laryngoscope versus Mccoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine at SMS Medical College & attached group of hospitals, Jaipur.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2022/06/043054

Enrollment

Registered

2022-06-07

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2022-06-27

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: O- Medical and Surgical

Interventions

Intervention1: Intubation response and ease of intubation: Comparision between king vision video laryngoscope versus mccoy laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with immobilized cervica

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1.ASA grade 1 & 2 2.Elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1.Anticipated difficult intubation 2.Obesity BMI >30kg/m2 3.Cardiovascular diseases and uncontrol hypertesion

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1 Mean time to view glottis 2 Mean cormack and lehane grading and mean POGO score 3 Mean intubation time 4 Means percentage of success rate at first attempt 5 Mean numbers of attempts 6 Mean hemodynamic parameters (HR,SBP,DBP,MBP,SPO2) 7 Proportion of cases required external laryngeal manipulation 8 Proportion of cases who had any complication related to intubationTimepoint: Base line After induction After intubation 1min after intubation 3min after intubation 5min after intubation 10min after intubation 20min after intubation	—

Measure

Time frame

1 Mean time to view glottis 2 Mean cormack and lehane grading and mean POGO score 3 Mean intubation time 4 Means percentage of success rate at first attempt 5 Mean numbers of attempts 6 Mean hemodynamic parameters (HR,SBP,DBP,MBP,SPO2) 7 Proportion of cases required external laryngeal manipulation 8 Proportion of cases who had any complication related to intubationTimepoint: Base line After induction After intubation 1min after intubation 3min after intubation 5min after intubation 10min after intubation 20min after intubation

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1 Mean numbers of attempts 2 Mean hemodynamic parameters (HR,SBP,DBP,MBP,SPO2) 3 Proportion of cases required external laryngeal manipulation 4 Proportion of cases who had any complication related to intubationTimepoint: Base line After induction After intubation 1min after intubation 3 min after intubation 5 min after intubation 10 min after intubation 20 min after intubation	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Jitendra Kumar Yadav

Sawai man singh medical college, Jaipur

drneelu13@gmail.com

Outcome results

None listed

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