Comparison Between C-MAC Blade D Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of Double Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracic Surgeries

Authors

  • . Sidra Department of Anesthesia and ICU, SMBBIT, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Sidra Javed Department of Anesthesia and ICU, SMBBIT, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Mirza Shahzad Baig Department of Anesthesia and ICU, SMBBIT, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Iqra Ashraf Department of Anesthesia and ICU, SMBBIT, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Layiba Masroor Department of Anesthesia and ICU, SMBBIT, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Sumreen Begum Department of Stem Cell Research Laboratory, SIUT, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i4.1716

Keywords:

C-MAC blade D video laryngoscope, double lumen tube (DLT), Macintosh laryngoscope

Abstract

The insertion of a double lumen tube (DLT) for lung isolation during thoracic surgeries is technically challenging and may be associated with airway trauma and significant hemodynamic fluctuations. Video laryngoscopy, particularly with devices like the C-MAC blade D, has improved visualization and is increasingly employed to manage difficult airways. However, its efficacy compared to the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in DLT intubation remains under investigation. Objective: To compare the performance of the C-MAC blade D video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope for DLT intubation, focusing on intubation time and hemodynamic changes associated with laryngoscopy. Methods: A single-blind randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06759038) was conducted at the Department of Anesthesia, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Institute of Trauma, from December 2024 to March 2025. Sixty adult patients (aged 18–60 years), classified as ASA I or II and scheduled for elective thoracotomy requiring DLT placement, were randomly assigned to either the C-MAC or Macintosh laryngoscope group. Only participants were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was the time taken for successful intubation. Secondary outcomes included intra-group and inter-group comparisons of hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) at baseline, during, and after intubation. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean intubation time was significantly longer in the C-MAC group (51.53 ± 7.25 seconds) compared to the Macintosh group (47.6 ± 5.46 seconds; p = 0.021). Although hemodynamic changes between groups were not statistically significant, within-group comparisons showed significant variations at different time points post-laryngoscopy. Conclusion: The Macintosh laryngoscope demonstrated superior performance in terms of shorter intubation time for DLT placement compared to the C-MAC blade D video laryngoscope. Both devices exhibited similar hemodynamic responses, suggesting comparable safety profiles. Further studies with larger sample sizes may validate these findings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kim KM, Seo KH, Kim YJ, John H, Moon HS, Kim N, et al. Comparison of the C-MAC D-blade video laryngoscope and the McCoy laryngoscope for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Medicine. 2022;101(45):e31775.

Tao D, Zhang G, Zheng X, Wang X, Gao G, Yang Z, et al. Feasibility study of intubation in lateral position using Viva-sight double-lumen tube combined with video laryngoscope in patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. Asian Journal of Surgery. 2024;47(1):373-9.

Ajimi J, Nishiyama J, Masuda R, Shibata T, Suzuki T. Airtraq DL and AWS-200 for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 2018;43(4):161-7.

Huang P, Qiu Y, Xu T, Sun X, Lu Z, Zhang Y, et al. GlideScope versus C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airways: A multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2023;91:111274.

Liu H-H, Dong F, Liu J-Y, Wei J-Q, Huang Y-K, Wang Y, et al. The use of ETView endotracheal tube for surveillance after tube positioning in patients undergoing lobectomy, randomized trial. Medicine. 2018;97(49):e13170.

Kim YS, Song J, Lim BG, Lee IO, Won YJ. Different classes of videoscopes and direct laryngoscopes for double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0238060.

Köhl V, Wünsch VA, Müller MC, Sasu PB, Dohrmann T, Peters T, et al. Hyperangulated vs. Macintosh videolaryngoscopy in adults with anticipated difficult airway management: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2024;79(9):957-66.

Sulser S, Ubmann D, Schlaepfer M, Brueesch M, Goliasch G, Seifert B, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in an emergency department: a randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology| EJA. 2016;33(12):943-8.

Xue F-S, Li H-X, Liu Y-Y, Yang G-Z. Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: a review of the literature. Therapeutics and clinical risk management. 2017:831-41.

Mathew A, Chandy J, Punnoose J, Gnanamuthu BR, Jeyseelan L, Sahajanandan R. A randomized control led study comparing CMAC video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for insertion of double lumen tube in patients undergoing elective thoracotomy. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology. 2021;37(2):266-71.

Huang P, Zhou R, Lu Z, Hang Y, Wang S, Huang Z. GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. BMC anesthesiology. 2020;20:1-8.

Hajiyeva K, Can ÖS, Baytaş V, Güçlü ÇY. Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in pediatric patients: Randomized controlled trial. Turkish Journal of Trauma & Emergency Surgery/Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2021;27(4).

Seo KH, Kim KM, John H, Jun JH, Han M, Kim S. Comparison of C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope and McCoy laryngoscope efficacy for nasotracheal intubation in simulated cervical spinal injury: A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC anesthesiology. 2020;20:1-9.

Smereka J, Ladny JR, Naylor A, Ruetzler K, Szarpak L. C-MAC compared with direct laryngoscopy for intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a manikin trial. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2017;35(8):1142-6.

Russell T, Slinger P, Roscoe A, McRae K, Van Rensburg A. A randomised controlled trial comparing the GlideScope® and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double‐lumen endobronchial intubation. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(12):1253-8.

Mathew A, Mathai RR, Theodore B, Chandy J, Yadav B, Singh G, et al. A randomised control study comparing C-MAC D-blade video laryngoscope (hyper angulated blade) and Macintosh laryngoscope for insertion of a double-lumen tube in patients undergoing elective thoracotomy. Anesthesia Essays and Researches. 2022;16(3):289-95.

Shah SB, Bhargava AK, Hariharan U, Mittal AK, Goel N, Choudhary M. A randomized clinical trial comparing the standard Mcintosh laryngoscope and the C-Mac D blade video laryngoscope™ for double lumen tube insertion for one lung ventilation in onco surgical patients. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016;60(5):312-8.

Zhang J, Tan LZ, Toh H, Foo CW, Wijeratne S, Hu H, et al. Comparing the first-attempt tracheal intubation success of the hyperangulated McGrath® X-blade vs the Macintosh-type CMAC videolaryngoscope in patients with cervical immobilization: a two-centre randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2022:1-7.

Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016(11).

Hansen M, Mathiesen O, Trautner S, Dahl J. Intranasal fentanyl in the treatment of acute pain–a systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2012;56(4):407-19.

Liu T, Li L, Wan L, Zhang C, Yao W. Videolaryngoscopy vs. Macintosh laryngoscopy for double‐lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(8):997-1007.

Nedunchezhian V, Nedunchezhian I, Van Zundert A, editors. Clinically preferred videolaryngoscopes in airway management: An updated systematic review. Healthcare; 2023: MDPI.

Freund D, Andersen PO, Svane C, Meyhoff CS, Sørensen JL. Unannounced vs announced in situ simulation of emergency teams: feasibility and staff perception of stress and learning. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2019;63(5):684-92.

Lewis S, Butler A, Parker J, Cook T, Schofield-Robinson O, Smith A. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017;119(3):369-83.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-30

How to Cite

Sidra, ., Javed, S. ., Baig, M. S. ., Ashraf, I. ., Masroor, L. ., & Begum, S. . (2025). Comparison Between C-MAC Blade D Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope for Insertion of Double Lumen Tube in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracic Surgeries. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 6(4), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i4.1716

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles