Videolaryngoscope and External Laryngeal Manipulation

Effect of External Laryngeal Manipulation on Laryngeal View During Tracheal Intubation Using a McGrath Videolaryngoscope: A Comparison of Blind versus Visual-Guided Manipulation

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

CRIS

Registry ID

KCT0012403

Enrollment

128

Registered

2026-08-05

Start date

2026-08-05

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-08-10

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

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Procedure/Surgery : Blind ELM group: The operator secures the glottic view using the videolaryngoscope, and the assistant performs ELM without viewing the videolaryngoscope screen. Visual-guided ELM g

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: -Adult patients aged 18 years or older -Patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia, in whom a difficult airway is anticipated (defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria: Mallampati class 3 or 4, mouth opening 45 cm, lip bite test class 3, or limited neck mobility) -Subjects who are able to read and understand the study information directly and are capable of voluntarily providing consent to participate

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: -Insufficient preoperative fasting period -Presence of severe airway malformation or laryngeal lesion -Markedly restricted cervical spine mobility due to cervical spine disease -Patients who declare their unwillingness to participate in this study -Patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding -Patients who are unable to read and understand the study information directly, or who are unable to voluntarily provide consent to participate

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Improvement of glottic view following ELM application	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Improvement in POGOS (%) – categorical variable (including degrees of improvement less than 30%) ;Time required for endotracheal intubation (from insertion of the laryngoscope to passage of the tube cuff through the glottis) (seconds) – continuous variable ;Time from initiation of ELM to attainment of the optimal glottic view (seconds) – continuous variable;Success of first-pass endotracheal intubation with ELM applied – binary variable;In cases of first-pass intubation failure, success following use of a stylet – binary variable;Proportion of patients (%) in whom glottic view worsened during ELM application – continuous variable ;In cases where glottic view worsened during ELM application, success of intubation after release of ELM, and, if unsuccessful, success following use of a stylet – binary variable;Ease of intubation as perceived by the intubator (VAS) – continuous variable	—

Measure

Time frame

Improvement in POGOS (%) – categorical variable (including degrees of improvement less than 30%) ;Time required for endotracheal intubation (from insertion of the laryngoscope to passage of the tube cuff through the glottis) (seconds) – continuous variable ;Time from initiation of ELM to attainment of the optimal glottic view (seconds) – continuous variable;Success of first-pass endotracheal intubation with ELM applied – binary variable;In cases of first-pass intubation failure, success following use of a stylet – binary variable;Proportion of patients (%) in whom glottic view worsened during ELM application – continuous variable ;In cases where glottic view worsened during ELM application, success of intubation after release of ELM, and, if unsuccessful, success following use of a stylet – binary variable;Ease of intubation as perceived by the intubator (VAS) – continuous variable

—

Countries

Korea, Republic of

Contacts

Public ContactJa Eun Lee

Samsung Medical Center

lammy1217@gmail.com+82-2-3410-6590

Outcome results