Efficacy of Advanced Video Laryngoscopy vs. Direct Laryngoscopy When Managed by Anaesthesia Technologists in Anticipated Difficult Airway Scenarios
- Jun 2
- 2 min read
Updated: Jun 4
Original Research | 2026 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | Page 44-48
SUMIT, PhD (Pursuing) MSC, BSC in OTAT, Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, JNU medical College Jaipur Rajasthan
Virender, MSc BSc OTAT, Assistant professor, Department of Anaesthesia
JNU medical College Jaipur Rajasthan
Corresponding Author:
Virender, MSc BSc OTAT,
Assistant professor,
Department of Anaesthesia
JNU medical College Jaipur, Rajasthan
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation remains a cornerstone of airway management, yet anticipated difficult airway scenarios present significant risks of morbidity and mortality. While direct laryngoscopy (DL) is the traditional standard, advanced video laryngoscopy (VL) has been introduced to improve glottic visualization and intubation success. However, the comparative efficacy of these techniques, particularly when performed by anaesthesia technologists in challenging settings, remains a critical area of investigation for clinical practice.
METHODS: This comparative, prospective study was conducted at JNU Medical College, Jaipur, to evaluate the intubation performance of anaesthesia technologists using either advanced video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy. The study focused on patients identified with anticipated difficult airways. Primary endpoints included the time to successful intubation, the quality of glottic visualization (assessed via the Cormack-Lehane grade), and the overall success rate of first-attempt intubation. Secondary outcomes encompassed hemodynamic stability and the incidence of airway-related trauma.
RESULTS: Preliminary findings indicate that advanced video laryngoscopy significantly improved the glottic view compared to traditional direct laryngoscopy in anticipated difficult airway scenarios. Technologists utilizing video laryngoscopy achieved a higher rate of successful first-attempt intubation and recorded lower incidence rates of mucosal trauma. Although the mean time to intubation was slightly longer in the video laryngoscopy group, the superior visualization and reduced requirement for external laryngeal manipulation demonstrate a clear clinical advantage.
CONCLUSION: Advanced video laryngoscopy offers superior efficacy over direct laryngoscopy when managed by anaesthesia technologists in anticipated difficult airway scenarios. These results support the integration of video laryngoscopy as a primary tool for technologists to enhance patient safety and airway management success.
KEYWORDS: Video Laryngoscopy, Direct Laryngoscopy, Difficult Airway, Anaesthesia Technologists, Tracheal Intubation, Airway Management.