Videolaryngoscopy and the search for the Holy Grail

<span class="paragraphSection">Editor—Kleine-Brueggeney and colleagues<a href="#aex022-B1" class="reflinks">¹</a> compared the performance of six videolaryngoscopes (VLs) in 720 patients in a methodologically excellent multicentre study. The context for a difficult airway was simulated by application of a cervical collar, and the results, with all limitations underlined by the authors, raise serious doubts about our (maybe abused) trust in VLs for difficult airways. The most important finding, in our opinion, is that VLs do fail; the success rate was 98% after some data exclusion, while the total success range was 37–98%. Including all VLs, the view was excellent in only 60% of patients, and the time for intubation ranged from 47 to 93 s, including the 'I can see but I can't intubate' scenario. Injury to soft tissue and bleeding occurred in 5–36% of the patients.</span>

http://ift.tt/2laPkie