Comparision between two intubating devices, vLarynx video laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope, in adult patients undergoing surgery

A prospective randomized study to compare vLarynx video laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing surgery

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2022/09/045815

Enrollment

Registered

2022-09-23

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2022-10-17

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K802- Calculus of gallbladder without cholecystitis

Interventions

Intervention1: Group VL (vLarynx video laryngoscope): Group VL will be intubated using vLarynx video laryngoscope undergoing general anaesthesia. Control Intervention1: Group KV (King vision video lar

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients of ASA grade I and II. 2. Weight between 41-70kg. 3. Patients planned for elective surgical procedures. 4. All grades of Mallampatti classification.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1.Previous history of multiple failed intubation. 2. Head and neck surgery. 3. Valvular heart disease. 4. CAD/uncontrolled hypertension. 5. Presence of raised intracranial pressure. 6. Cervical spine injury. 7. Predicted difficult laryngoscopy. 8. Any pathology of oral cavity that will obstruct the insertion of device. 9. Mouth opening 10. Potentially full stomach patients (trauma, morbid obesity, pregnancy, history of gastric regurgitation and heart burn) and at risk of esophageal reflux (hiatus hernia).

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
To compare the laryngoscopy and intubation time using the two devices.Timepoint: At baseline	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. To compare number of attempts for successful intubation. 2. To compare the glottic view using POGO (percentage of glottic opening) score. 3. To grade the ease of tracheal intubation using these devices. 4. To compare the hemodynamic response i.e., Heart Rate and Mean Arterial Blood Pressure after laryngoscopy and intubation. 5. To look for post operative complications if any.Timepoint: Pre intubation and at 1min, 3min and 5mins after intubation.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. To compare number of attempts for successful intubation. 2. To compare the glottic view using POGO (percentage of glottic opening) score. 3. To grade the ease of tracheal intubation using these devices. 4. To compare the hemodynamic response i.e., Heart Rate and Mean Arterial Blood Pressure after laryngoscopy and intubation. 5. To look for post operative complications if any.Timepoint: Pre intubation and at 1min, 3min and 5mins after intubation.

—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactSYED HUSSAIN AMIR

Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and hospital, AMU, Aligarh

hussainamir77@gmail.com9897559183

Outcome results

None listed

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