Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope size 2 Macintosh blade with size 2 C-MAC D-Blade for laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in children with simulated cervical spine injury: A prospective randomized crossover study

Renu Sinha, Bikash Ray, Ankur Sharma, Ravinder Pandey, Jyotsna Punj, Vanlalnghaka Darlong, Anjan Trikha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


CMAC video laryngoscope size 2 D-Blade has been recently introduced for management of pediatric difficult airway. Our primary outcome was to compare glottic view, intubation time, and ease of intubation with the size 2 Macintosh versus D-Blade of C-MAC video laryngoscope in simulated cervical injury in children. Material and Methods: This randomized crossover study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Northern India. Forty children of 4-14 years of age were enrolled in this study. After induction of anesthesia, video laryngoscopy was performed either with size 2 CMAC Macintosh (group M) or D-Blade (group D) with manual in-line stabilization. After removal of the first blade, second video laryngoscopy was performed with the alternative blade. Endotracheal intubation was done with the second laryngoscopy. Best glottic view, time for best glottic view, and difficulty in blade insertion were recorded during both the video laryngoscopies. During second video laryngoscopy, difficulty of tube insertion and time for intubation were noted. Results: The glottic view grade was significantly better in group D compared with the group M (P = 0.0002). Insertion of D-Blade was more difficult than Macintosh blade (P = 0.0007). There was no statistical difference in terms of time for best glottic view in group M and group D (13.40 ± 4.90 vs 13.62 ± 5.60 s) and endotracheal tube insertion time (24.80 ± 7.90 vs 27.90 ± 10.90 s), respectively. Number of intubation attempts was similar in both the groups. Conclusions: Size 2 D-Blade of C-MAC video laryngoscope provided a better glottic view in children with simulated cervical spine injury as compared with CMAC Macintosh blade. Success of intubation, intubation time, and ease of intubation were comparable with both the blades.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)509-514
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1 2019

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this