Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of MedAn with the Nishikawa Blade and UE Videolaryngoscopes for Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the MedAn videolaryngoscope with the Nishikawa blade (MedAn) vs the UE videolaryngoscope (UE) for intubation with a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube (LDLT) in patients with normal airways. Material/Methods:We randomly categorized 106 patients scheduled to undergo elective thoracic surgery with LDLT for one-lung ventilation into 2 groups: the UE group (Group UE) and the MedAn group (Group MedAn), using the MedAn or UE for LDLT intubation.The primary outcome was time to successful intubation.The Cormack-Lehane classification of laryngeal view was the key secondary outcome.Other secondary outcomes included first-attempt and overall intubation success rates, laryngoscopy time, LDLT placement time, operators' subjective evaluation of videolaryngoscopes, hemodynamic changes during videolaryngoscopic intubation, and adverse outcomes. Results:The time to successful intubation and LDLT placement time of Group MedAn were 42.0 (32.35, 47.0) s and 23.0 (18.0, 26.0) s, and it was shorter than in Group UE (median, 42 s vs 49 s, 23 s vs 30 s, P<0.001).Group MedAn had a better laryngeal view (P=0.03) and less subglottic/tracheal mucosal injury (P<0.001)than Group UE.Moreover, the operators' subjective grading of ease of laryngoscopy, quality of view, and ease of LDLT placement were higher in Group MedAn than in Group UE (P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with the UE, the MedAn could reduce the intubation time and provide a better laryngeal view and sufficient intubation space for safer LDLT intubation in patients with normal airways.