Skip to content

McGrath vs. C-MAC Video Laryngoscopy Comparison in Endotracheal Tube Insertion

Effectiveness Comparison Between McGrath and C-MAC Video Laryngoscope in Endotracheal Tube Insertion

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04936516
Enrollment
68
Registered
2021-06-23
Start date
2021-08-01
Completion date
2021-10-14
Last updated
2021-10-19

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

Conditions

Intubation; Difficult or Failed

Brief summary

Tracheal intubation is commonly performed using a standard Macintosh blade, but recently there has been advanced technology using video laryngoscopy (VL).In this modern era, there are various types of available VL to make it easier for anesthesiologists to perform intubation, especially in patients with difficult airway anatomy. Various studies showed different results regarding the effectiveness of both C-MAC® and McGrath®, by assessing the comparison of the effectiveness, valuable information will be obtained for further consideration by experts in choosing the best tools in the future.

Interventions

DEVICEEndotracheal intubation

Endotracheal intubation using either McGrath or C-MAC video laryngoscopy

Sponsors

Udayana University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Elective surgery patients without neck and face trauma 2. Undergo surgery requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation 3. Patients with physical status ASA I-III 4. Patients aged 18-65 years 5. Nutritional status (BMI \< 35 Kg/m2)

Exclusion criteria

1. Patients refusal to be included in the study 2. Patients with cervical spine instability 3. Anatomical and structural abnormalities of the maxillary teeth 4. Thyromental distance \<6 cm and inter-incisor distance \<3.5 cm 5. History of difficult intubation 6. LEMON criteria ≥ 3

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Intubation timeFrom first intubation attempt until successful intubation, an average of one minuteTime required to perform intubation until endotracheal tube is properly positioned
Ease of intubationFrom first intubation attempt until successful intubation, an average of two minutesDifficulty level of intubation, scores 1-2, 1=effortless, 2=difficult

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of intubation attemptsFrom first intubation attempt until successful intubation, an average of one minuteThe number of times required for a successful intubation
Glottic visualizationDuring first intubation attempt, an average of 30 secondsVisualization of glottic assessed by the POGO (Percentage of Glottis Opening) score, 1=best, 4=worst
Complications of intubationFrom first intubation attempt until successful intubation, an average of one minuteIncludes orotracheal trauma, presence of blood in the blades, laryngospasm, bradycardia

Countries

Indonesia

Outcome results

None listed

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