E-ISSN 2277-338X | ISSN 2320-4664
|Original Research|| |
Comparison of Truview PCD and Trupti blade laryngoscope in adult patients of anticipated difficult Intubation
Kamla Mehta, Prashant Bhoya, Hiren Parmar.
Background: The Truview PCD and Trupti blade provide better view of vocal cords and do not require the proper alignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axes as required with the Macintosh blade.
Objective: To compare the laryngeal view and hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation with Truview PCD and Trupti blade in cases with single or multiple predictors of difficult intubation (PDI).
Materials and Methods: Sixty adult patients of both sexes who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were divided into two groups. Laryngoscopy was performed with Truview blade in group A and with Trupti blade in group B. Laryngeal view was graded by the Cormack–Lehane classification after laryngoscopy. Hemodynamic response during laryngoscopy and intubation was compared in both the groups.
Results: Truview PCD was found to have better Cormack–Lehane glottic view and less hemodynamic response. The time required for the tracheal intubation was higher with Truview PCD blade than that with Trupti blade.
Conclusion: The Truview PCD and Trupti blade both are better for intubation in adult patients having less than three PDI.
Difficult airway, Truview PCD, Cormack–Lehane classification, Trupti blade
|1. Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Plaisance P. The Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS); proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anaesthesiology 1997;87:1290-7. [DOI via Crossref] |
|2. Joseph J, Sequeira T, Upadya M. Comparison of the use of McCoy and Truview EVO2 laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Saudi J Anaesth 2012;6(3):248-53. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] [PMC Free Fulltext] |
|3. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey GJ. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2008;101(5):723-30. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] |
|4. Singh I, Khaund A, Gupta A. Evaluation of Truview evo2 laryngoscope in anticipated difficult intubation: a comparison to Macintosh laryngoscope. Indian J Anaesth 2009;53:164-8. [Pubmed] [PMC Free Fulltext] |
|5. Laurent SC, de Melo AE, Alexander Williams JM. The use of the McCoy laryngoscope in patients with simulated cervical spine injuries. Anaesthesia 1996;51:74-5. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] |
|6. Gabbot DA. Laryngoscopy using the McCoy laryngoscope after application of a cervical collar. Anaesthesia 2007;51:812-4. [DOI via Crossref] |
|7. Khan RM, Maroof M, Jain S, Khan FR, Madhulika M. Truview Evo-2 vs Macintosh laryngoscopy: study of cardiovascular responses and POGO scoring. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2008;24:3113-4.|
|8. Barak M, Philipchuck P, Abecassis P, Katz Y. A comparison of the Truview blade with the Macintosh blade in adult patients. Anaesthesia 2007;62(8):827-31. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] |