Comparison of the Macintosh, King Vision®, Glidescope® and AirTraq® Laryngoscopes in Routine Airway Management

Failure to successfully intubate the trachea and secure the airway remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, in the operative \[1-2\] and emergency settings. \[3-4\]. When the concept of endotracheal intubation was developed, 100 years ago the procedure was performed blindly. Shortly thereafter, laryngoscopes were invented, allowing for direct visualization of the larynx with a viewing angle of 15 degrees \[5\]. Insufficient laryngoscopic view constitutes the main reason for difficult intubations \[6\]. Video laryngoscopes provide an improved view of the glottis, as the camera is a few millimeters away from the glottis. The use of Glidescope \[7-8\] and AirTraq \[9\] laryngoscopes has superior glottis view and ease of tracheal intubation compared with the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope. Unfortunately, the use video laryngoscopes is associated with longer time to tracheal intubation compared with the traditional techniques which be explained with the variable learning curves of the practitioners. \[10\] The King Vision video laryngoscope® (King Systems Company, a division of Consort Medical, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) is a relative newcomer to the video laryngoscopes of devices that claim to provide the \"perfect view\" for intubation via use of video and digital technology. The King Vision Video laryngoscope is a two piece design. It has a reusable monitor that attaches to disposable blades. Blades are made of high quality poly-carbonate plastic and house a complementary semi-conductor (CMOS) micro camera offers a 160 degree of view and LED light source. Up to best of the authors\' knowledge, there is no current published or ongoing randomized controlled comparative study of the use of King Vision laryngoscope with traditional laryngoscope and other video laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation.