Comparison of Videolaryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Airway Management

A Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy and King Vision® aBlade™ Videolaryngoscopy in Paediatric Airway Management: Success Rate and Learning Curve of Trainee Anaesthetists

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT03571295

Acronym

LearnaBlade

Enrollment

210

Registered

2018-06-27

Start date

2018-07-01

Completion date

2020-09-01

Last updated

2021-08-30

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

Conditions

Airway Management, Videolaryngoscopy

Keywords

pediatric airway management, learning curve

Brief summary

The investigators intended to evaluate first success rate and learning curve of trainee anesthetists performing direct and videolaryngoscopy in pediatric airway management.

Detailed description

After obtaining written informed consent of 10 trainee anesthetists with non less than 24 months and not exceeding 60 months residency, use of the King Vision aBlade videolaryngoscope was demonstrated by presenting a 2 min instruction video. First endotracheal intubation by each trainee anesthetist was randomly allocated to either direct (DL) or King Vision aBlade videolaryngoscopy (KingVL). Then order of laryngoscopy type was alternating at least each trainee anesthetists performed 10 DL and 10 KingVL endotracheal intubations.

Interventions

DEVICEKing Vision aBlade

endotracheal intubation performed with King Vision aBlade

DEVICEdirect laryngoscopy

endotracheal intubation performed with direct laryngoscopy

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

BASIC_SCIENCE

Masking

SINGLE (Caregiver)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

1 Years to 10 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* ASA 1 to 2 * written informed consent from both legal guardians * children who were scheduled for nonemergency surgery with requirement of endotracheal intubation

Exclusion criteria

* known or predicted difficult airway * increased risk for pulmonary aspiration

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
first attempt success rate of endotracheal intubation	operation day	yes/no

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
total time for successful intubation	operation day	in sec

Other

Measure	Time frame	Description
failure category of the first attempt	operation day	First attempt failed when esophageal intubation or oxygen desaturation \< 90% occurred.

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026