Next Article in Journal
Clinical and Evolutionary Features of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19) in Children, a Romanian Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Plain Radiographic Analysis of Laryngeal Dimensions in Young Children: Normal versus Croup
Previous Article in Journal
Ultra Short Course Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in Children
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of the UEscope Video Laryngoscope with the Traditional Direct Laryngoscope in Neonates and Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

1
Division of Dento-Oral Anesthesiology, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan
2
Department of Health Data Science, Graduate School of Data Science, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan
3
Department of Anesthesiology, Dokkyo Medical University, 880 Kitakobayashi, Mibu 321-0293, Japan
4
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, International University of Health & Welfare Ichikawa Hospital, 6-1-4 Kounodai, Ichikawa 272-0827, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(9), 1280; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9091280
Submission received: 29 July 2022 / Revised: 20 August 2022 / Accepted: 21 August 2022 / Published: 25 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pediatric Airway Management: Advances and Future Challenges)

Abstract

:
This research aimed to produce a coherent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients using network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the electric databases for prospective randomized studies that compared different tracheal intubation devices in pediatric patients. The primary outcome was intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were glottic visualization and intubation time. The statistical analysis performed used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and network plots and network league tables were produced. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding rigid-fiberscope-type indirect laryngoscopes. Thirty-four trials comparing 13 devices were included. Most laryngoscopes had the same intubation failure rate as the Macintosh reference device. Only the Truview PCD™ had a significantly higher intubation failure rate than the Macintosh (odds ratio 4.78, 95% confidence interval 1.11–20.6) The highest-ranking laryngoscope was the Airtaq™ (P score, 0.90), and the AirwayScope™, McGrath™, and Truview EVO2™ ranked higher than the Macintosh. The Bullard™ had the lowest ranking (P score, 0.08). All laryngoscopes had the same level of glottic visualization as the Macintosh and only the C-MAC™ had a significantly shorter intubation time. Intubation time was significantly longer when using the GlideScope™, Storz DCI™, Truview PCD™, or Bullard™ compared with the Macintosh. P score and ranking of devices in the subgroup analyses were similar to those in the main analysis. We applied NMA to create a consistent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients. The findings of NMA suggest that there is presently no laryngoscope superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of tracheal intubation failure rate and glottic visualization in pediatric patients.

1. Introduction

Tracheal intubation in pediatric patients is difficult because the anatomy of the oral cavity, glottis, and trachea is smaller than that in adults. Furthermore, the laryngoscopes and tracheal tubes used for tracheal intubation in children are smaller than those in adults, and their use requires special skill [1,2]. Therefore, there is an increased risk of complications, such as hypoxia, bradycardia, and tachycardia, when performing tracheal intubation in pediatric patients [3,4,5].
A conventional direct laryngoscope, such as the Macintosh laryngoscope or Miller laryngoscope, is usually used for tracheal intubation in pediatric patients. Various types of indirect laryngoscopes are also now clinically used for tracheal intubation in these patients. Tracheal intubation with a conventional laryngoscope requires the laryngoscopist to bring the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axes into a straight line extending from the incisors to the larynx. An indirect laryngoscope incorporates a digital camera in the tip of the blade that displays an image of the glottis on an external monitor. This structural feature of indirect laryngoscopes may aid tracheal intubation in pediatric patients. Indirect laryngoscopes are considered advantageous for tracheal intubation because they allow a clearer view of the small glottis and epiglottis in the narrow oral cavity of a pediatric patient on an external monitor [6].
Various studies of intubation using indirect laryngoscopes in pediatric patients have been reported. Previous pairwise meta-analyses have found that intubation times are longer in pediatric patients when an indirect laryngoscope is used, although the success rate is not significantly different from that achieved with a direct laryngoscope [7,8]. However, it is not known which of the indirect laryngoscopes is the best tracheal device for pediatric patients.
The aim of this research was to produce a coherent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients using network meta-analysis (NMA).

2. Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This review was prepared according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) [9]. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021260230).

2.2. Search Strategy

We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The search strategy is shown in Figure S1. We also manually searched the reference lists in the reports and reviews extracted. No restrictions were placed on the language of publication or type of article. The search was performed in August 2021.

2.3. Study Selection and Data Collection

We searched for articles using the formula shown in Figure S1. Potentially eligible articles were extracted and assessed by two of the authors (H.H., T.S.) working independently of each other. Disagreements regarding interpretation or analysis of data in the extracted articles were resolved by discussion. If there were reports of the same or updated data, only the report analyzing the latest data was added to the meta-analysis. Authors were contacted directly in the event of missing data or data inconsistencies. We also searched registry websites to determine if the research protocol for each study included in this meta-analysis had been published in advance, and, if so, we confirmed that it matched the research content; if not, a risk of bias was recorded.

2.4. Eligibility Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had a prospective randomized design and compared tracheal intubation devices in pediatric patients. Trials involving flexible fiber intubation, MaCoy laryngoscope, manikins, and tracheal intubation performed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation were excluded. Furthermore, we excluded studies in which the type of laryngoscope used was unclear or in which two different laryngoscopes were used in the same patient. The following data were extracted: intubation failure at the first attempt, glottic visualization (Cormack–Lehane classification 1 vs. 2 or higher), and intubation time. We used the definitions in each study for tracheal intubation failure and intubation time.
The primary outcome was intubation failure at the first attempt. The secondary outcomes were glottic visualization and intubation time.

2.5. Risk of Bias within Individual Studies

We evaluated the risk of bias for each individual study with reference to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [10] (Figure S2). Risk of bias was evaluated independently by the two reviewers (H.H., T.S.).

2.6. Certainty of Evidence

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each network estimate [11]. In this approach, the rating of direct evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) starts at “high” quality and can be described as “moderate”, “low”, or “very low” based on the following six domains: within-study bias, across-studies bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence (inconsistency). A node-splitting model was used to evaluate inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates [12]. We used the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) web application based on the previously developed framework [13].

2.7. Publication Bias

We produced a comparison-adjusted funnel plot to detect possible small-study effects on the primary outcome. Before using this plot, we anticipated that new treatments would be preferred and, therefore, we arranged the laryngoscopes from old to new so that all comparisons would refer to “old” and “new” interventions. We then calculated the difference in study-specific effect sizes.

2.8. Sensitivity Analysis

For the sensitivity analysis, risk was assessed using the Risk-of-Bias tool. Only trials with a low risk of bias were selected for meta-analysis. The outcomes analyzed were intubation failure, glottic visualization, and intubation time.

2.9. Subgroup Analysis

Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding rigid-fiberscope-type indirect laryngoscopes (Bonfils and Bullard) because of the difference in operability between those laryngoscopes and blade-type indirect laryngoscopes.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. The pooled effect estimates of binary variables (intubation failure, glottic visualization) are expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled difference in intubation time between each type of intubation device is expressed as the mean difference (MD) of the 95% CI.
The P score was used to rank the effectiveness of each device and identify the best device in terms of each outcome [14]. The P score ranges from 0 to 1, and the closer it is to 1, the higher the probability that an intervention ranks first or is in one of the top ranks. A frequentist NMA was performed using R version 4.0.5 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with the netmeta package version 8 × 104 package. A random-effects model was used when pooling effect size.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Studies in the Meta-Analysis

The initial search of the above-mentioned electronic databases yielded 401 potentially relevant articles, and 165 unrelated studies were excluded based on their titles and abstracts. We then carefully read the full text of the remaining 236 articles to determine whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A further 202 studies were excluded for the following reasons: non-RCT (n = 56), manikin study (n = 41), case report (n = 33), review or meta-analysis (n = 22), different outcomes (n = 16), use of a flexible fiberscope (n = 11), use of a laryngeal mask (n = 7), observational study design (n = 7), adult patients (n = 4), guidelines (n = 3), and resuscitation research (n = 3). The remaining 34 articles met the inclusion criteria and contained the data necessary for the planned analysis (Figure S3) [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].
All studies included in the meta-analysis were published between 2008 and 2020. Patients included in these studies were aged 0 to 10 years. Based on pre-intubation airway assessment, 26 of 34 studies included patients with a normal airway [15,16,17,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,46,47], and 3 included patients with a difficult airway [35,36,45]. Five studies did not provide information on airway status [18,19,21,34,44]. The 34 trials investigated 13 types of laryngoscope, namely, the Macintosh (used in 25 trials), GlideScope™ (n = 10, GlideScope), Miller (n = 8), Airtraq™ (n = 5, Airtraq), Airway Scope™ (n = 5, AWS), McGrath™ (n = 5, McGrath), C-MAC™ (n = 4, C-MAC), Truview EVO2™ (n = 3, Truview EVO2), Truview PCD™ (n = 2, Truview PCD), King Vision™ (n = 2, King Vision), Storz DCI™ (n = 2, Storz DCI), Bullard™ (n = 1, Bullard), and Bonfils™ (n = 1, Bonfils) (Table 1).

3.2. Risk of Bias

Figure 1 summarizes the risk of bias. Most of the studies included random sequence generation and explained any withdrawals and missing data. However, blinding of the laryngoscope used was not possible in any of the studies. Moreover, in most studies, the assessing physician was not blinded. The majority of the more recent studies had been pre-registered online, but some of the earlier studies were not pre-registered.

3.3. Primary Outcome

Intubation Failure at First Attempt

Intubation failure could be investigated in 14 studies that included 1322 patients. Twenty-one studies and 1930 patients were compared by direct comparison and indirect comparison of NMA. Most laryngoscopes had the same intubation failure rate as the Macintosh; only the Truview PCD had a significantly higher intubation failure rate (OR 4.78, 95% CI 1.11–20.6) (Figure 2A). The expected P scores and ranking of each intubation device in terms of intubation failure at the first attempt are shown in Figure 3A. The highest-ranked laryngoscope was the Airtaq (P score, 0.90), and the AWS, McGrath, and Truview EVO2 ranked higher than the Macintosh. The Bullard had the lowest ranking (P score, 0.08). A league table summarizing the results for intubation failure is presented in Figure S4. A summary of the findings for the primary outcome is provided in Table 2.
CINeMA did not find any evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons (Figure S5). The comparison-adjusted funnel plot and Egger’s test results indicate that there was no publication bias (p = 0.31) (Figure S6A).

3.4. Secondary Outcome

Glottic Visualization and Intubation Time

Glottic visualization was analyzed in 10 studies (813 patients). Sixteen studies and 1459 patients were compared by direct comparison and indirect comparison of NMA. All laryngoscopes had the same level of glottic visualization as the Macintosh. (Figure 2B) Figure 3B shows the expected P scores and ranks the ability of each intubation device to visualize the glottis. Glottic visualization was highest for the Airway Scope (P score, 0.81) and lowest for the Miller device (P score, 0.17). All indirect laryngoscopes ranked higher than the Macintosh (Figure S7). CINeMA found no evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons (Figure S8). The comparison-adjusted funnel plot and Egger’s test results indicate there was no publication bias (p = 0.67) (Figure S6B). The findings for glottic visualization are shown in Figure S9.
Intubation time was analyzed in 25 studies (2142 patients). Thirty-one studies and 2599 patients were compared by direct comparison and indirect comparison of NMA. Analysis with reference to the Macintosh showed that only the C-MAC had a significantly shorter intubation time (–MD –9.40, 95% CI–16.7, –2.13). The intubation time was significantly longer for the GlideScope (MD 6.41, 95% CI 1.95–10.9), Storz DCI (MD 9.98, 95% CI 1.72–18.3), Truview PCD (MD 11.5, 95% CI 3.01–19.9), and Bullard (MD 37.0, 95% CI 18.9–55.1) compared with the Macintosh (Figure 2C). The expected P score and ranking of each device in terms of intubation time are shown in Figure 3C. Of all the laryngoscopes, the one with the shortest intubation time was the C-MAC (P score, 0.97) (Figure S10). CINeMA found no evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons (Figure S11). The comparison-adjusted funnel plot and Egger’s test results indicate that there was no publication bias (p = 0.11) (Figure S6C). The intubation time data are shown in Figure S12. The Airtraq, AWS, and McGrath devices were ranked highest for intubation failure and glottic visualization. However, the intubation time for these laryngoscopes was no shorter than that for the Macintosh.

3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

The laryngoscopes used in the included studies could not be blinded. Therefore, no study was low-risk according to the GRADE evaluation, and sensitivity analysis could not be performed.

3.6. Subgroup Analyses

Except for the Bonfils and Bullard devices, the P score and ranking of devices in the subgroup analyses were similar to those in the main analysis (Figures S13 and S14A–C). The comparison-adjusted funnel plot and Egger’s test results indicate that there was no publication bias in intubation failure, glottis visualization, and intubation time (Figure S15A–C).

4. Discussion

The findings of this systematic review and NMA suggest that none of the currently available laryngoscopes are significantly better than the Macintosh device in terms of intubation failure and glottic visualization. On the other hand, the intubation time was significantly shorter for only the C-MAC indirect laryngoscope and significantly longer for the GlideScope, Storz DCI, Truview PCD, and Bullard devices compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
In terms of P scores, the AWS, McGrath, and Truview EVO2 laryngoscopes ranked higher for both intubation failure and glottic visualization. Glottic visualization with the Airtraq could not be assessed because there were no relevant RCTs available for inclusion in the NMA. The P score rankings for intubation failure and glottic visualization were similar in the subgroup analyses. However, among the laryngoscopes with the highest intubation failure ranking, only the Airtraq ranked higher for intubation time. These findings suggest that the Airtraq is the most useful device for tracheal intubation in pediatric patients. The AWS, McGrath, and Truview EVO2 were ranked higher for intubation failure and glottic visualization; these laryngoscopes were ranked equal to or lower than the Macintosh in intubation time.
The present study compared and analyzed the glottic visualization of indirect laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopes. Glottic visualization was better with all indirect laryngoscopes than with direct laryngoscopes in regard to P scores. However, not all indirect laryngoscopes improved intubation failure significantly more than direct laryngoscopes. Conventionally, the grade of glottic visualization has been regarded as an important factor for the success of tracheal intubation [48]. However, when indirect laryngoscopy began to be used, it was proven that the success rate of tracheal intubation did not necessarily increase even with excellent glottal visualization [49,50]. The reason for this is that, even when using an indirect laryngoscope, it is necessary to operate the tracheal tube while looking at the monitor screen. This maneuver requires eye–hand coordination and can be challenging compared to using a direct laryngoscope. Second, indirect laryngoscopes can see the glottis with less laryngeal force than direct laryngoscopes. Therefore, it is necessary to operate the intubation tube in a narrow oral cavity. However, it is difficult to guide the tracheal tube to the glottis because the working space of the intubation tube is narrow in the narrow oral cavity.
The Bonfils and Bullard laryngoscopes are believed to have longer intubation times. In our NMA, compared with the Macintosh device, the intubation time was significantly longer with the Bullard, which was ranked last by P score, but not with the Bonfils, which was ranked second. This result indicates that the shape of the intubation device alone cannot determine its usefulness in pediatric patients. However, our NMA contained only one RCT that compared the Bonfils and Bullard devices, so further research is needed.
In this NMA, the indirect laryngoscope most often studied in the RCTs was the Glidescope. There was no significant difference in the intubation failure rate or glottic visualization between the Glidescope and Macintosh. However, the intubation time was significantly longer with the Glidescope. Moreover, the Glidescope had a low P score ranking in all analyses of intubation failure, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Of note, much of the research on the Glidescope was carried out in the early years of research on indirect laryngoscopes (2008–2013), and the low evaluation score for this device, particularly for the intubation time, may reflect anesthesiologists’ lack of familiarity with the use of indirect laryngoscopes [51,52]. Furthermore, when intubating the trachea using the Glidescope, it is necessary to bend the stylet by at least 50–60 degrees so that it matches the angle of the blade, which would also increase the intubation time [18].
This NMA has several limitations. First, the laryngoscope used for research cannot be blinded, which increases the likelihood of bias. Second, the patients in each RCT varied in age from 0 to 10 years. Children gain height and weight as they grow, so the difficulty of tracheal intubation varies according to age, as does the size of the laryngoscope blade used. These variations have implications in terms of the quality of the study. Third, pre-intubation airway status varied from study to study. Our meta-analysis included 25 trials in 33 patients with a normal airway, 3 patients with a difficult airway, and 5 whose airway status was unknown. A subgroup analysis of patients in whom intubation was difficult had been planned but could not be performed because the number of trials was too small. Finally, there were wide variations in the characteristics of the study populations and the dosages of anesthetic agents used, which are further sources of bias.
We applied a network meta-analysis (NMA) to create a consistent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients. In conclusion, the findings of this systematic review and NMA suggest that there is presently no laryngoscope superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of tracheal intubation failure rate and glottic visualization in pediatric patients. However, the intubation time was significantly shorter when using the C-MAC indirect laryngoscope than when using the Macintosh. The intubation time was significantly longer for the GlideScope, Storz DCI, Truview PCD, and Bullard devices than for the Macintosh. The Airtraq, AWS, and McGrath ranked higher for intubation failure and glottic visualization, but these laryngoscopes were ranked equal to or lower than the Macintosh in intubation time. Except for the Bonfils and Bullard devices, the P score and ranking of devices in the subgroup analyses were similar to those in the main analysis.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children9091280/s1, Figure S1: Search strategy, Figure S2: Methodological domain of risks of bias, Figure S3: Meta-analysis flow chart, Figure S4: League table of the primary outcome, Figure S5: Results of inconsistency of the primary outcome, Figure S6: Results of funnel plot of the primary (A) and secondary outcome (B,C), Figure S7: League table of the secondary outcome (glottic visualization), Figure S8: Results of inconsistency of the secondary outcome (glottic visualization), Figure S9: Summary of findings table for the secondary outcome (glottic visualization), Figure S10: League table of the secondary outcome (intubation time), Figure S11: Results of inconsistency of the secondary outcome (intubation time), Figure S12: Summary of findings table for the secondary outcome (intubation time), Figure S13: Forest plot of the subgroup analysis, Figure S14: The results of subgroup analysis by P score ranking, Figure S15: The results of funnel plot of the subgroup analysis.

Author Contributions

Study concept and design: H.H., T.S. and K.M.; Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: H.H., T.M., S.K. and T.S.; Drafting of manuscript: H.H., S.K. and K.M.; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: H.H., S.T. and T.M.; Statistical analysis: H.H., T.M. and T.S.; Obtaining funding: None; Administrative, technical, or material support: H.H. and K.M.; Supervision: H.H., S.T. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was waived.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Heinrich, S.; Birkholz, T.; Ihmsen, H.; Irouschek, A.; Ackermann, A.; Cesnjevar, R.; Schmidt, J. Incidence and predictors of poor laryngoscopic view in children undergoing pediatric cardiac surgery. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2013, 27, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sims, C.; von Ungern-Sternberg, B.S. The normal and the challenging pediatric airway. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2012, 22, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Caplan, R.A.; Posner, K.L.; Ward, R.J.; Cheney, F.W. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 1990, 72, 828–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rose, D.K.; Cohen, M.M. The airway: Problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can. J. Anaesth. 1994, 41, 372–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mort, T.C. Emergency tracheal intubation: Complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth. Analg. 2004, 99, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vlatten, A.; Litz, S.; MacManus, B.; Launcelott, S.; Soder, C. A comparison of the GlideScope video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy in children with immobilized cervical spine. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2012, 28, 1317–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, X.; Jin, Y.; Li, J.; Xin, J.; Yang, Z. Efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in paediatric intubation: A meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020, 66, 109968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sun, Y.; Lu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Jiang, H. Pediatric video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2014, 24, 1056–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hutton, B.; Moher, D.; Cameron, C. The PRISMA Extension Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 163, 566–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Higgins, J.P.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available online: www.cochrane.org/training/cochranehandbook (accessed on 1 August 2021).
  11. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Vist, G.E.; Kunz, R.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Schünemann, H.J.; Group, G.W. GRADE- an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336, 924–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Van Valkenhoef, G.; Dias, S.; Ades, A.E.; Welton, N.J. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2016, 7, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nikolakopoulou, A.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Papakonstantinou, T.; Chaimani, A.; Del Giovane, C.; Egger, M.; Salanti, G. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020, 17, e1003082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rucker, G.; Schwarzer, G. Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015, 15, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yi, I.K.; Kwak, H.J.; Kim, K.M.; Ahn, S.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y. Comparison of Pentax Airway Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in children: A randomised non-inferiority trial. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2019, 63, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Macnair, D.; Baraclough, D.; Wilson, G.; Bloch, M.; Engelhardt, T. Pediatric airway management: Comparing the Berci-Kaplan Video Laryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2009, 19, 577–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Redel, A.; Karademir, F.; Schlitterlau, A.; Frommer, M.; Scholtz, L.U.; Kranke, P.; Kehl, F.; Roewer, N.; Lange, M. Validation of the GlideScope video laryngoscope in pediatric patients. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2009, 19, 667–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, J.T.; Na, H.S.; Bae, J.Y.; Kim, D.W.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, C.S.; Kim, S.D. GlideScope video laryngoscope: A randomized clinical trial in 203 paediatric patients. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008, 101, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Singh, R.; Singh, P.; Vajifdar, H. A comparison of Truview infant EVO2 laryngoscope with the Miller blade in neonates and infants. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2009, 19, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nileshwar, A.; Garg, V. Comparison of Bullard laryngoscope and short-handled Macintosh laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in pediatric patients with simulated restriction of cervical spine movements. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2010, 20, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Inal, M.T.; Memis, D.; Kargi, M.; Oktay, Z.; Sut, N. Comparison of TruView EVO2 with Miller laryngoscope in paediatric patients. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2010, 27, 950–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.T.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, C.S. A comparison of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation in children. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2011, 21, 1165–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fiadjoe, J.E.; Gurnaney, H.; Dalesio, N.; Sussman, E.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, X.; Stricker, P.A. A prospective randomized equivalence trial of the GlideScope Cobalt(R) video laryngoscope to traditional direct laryngoscopy in neonates and infants. Anesthesiology 2012, 116, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Riad, W.; Moussa, A.; Wong, D.T. Airtraq versus Macintoch laryngoscope in intubation performance in the pediatric population. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2012, 6, 332–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Vlatten, A.; Fielding, A.; Bernard, A.; Litz, S.; MacManus, B.; Soder, C. Comparison of the airtraq laryngoscope to the direct laryngoscopy in the pediatric airway. J. Pediatr. Intensive Care 2012, 1, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. White, M.C.; Marsh, C.J.; Beringer, R.M.; Nolan, J.A.; Choi, A.Y.; Medlock, K.E.; Mason, D.G. A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children. Anaesthesia 2012, 67, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ali, Q.E.; Amir, S.H.; Firdaus, U.; Siddiqui, O.A.; Azhar, A.Z. A comparative study of the efficacy of Pediatric Airtraq(R) with conventional laryngoscope in children. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013, 79, 1366–1370. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaufmann, J.; Laschat, M.; Hellmich, M.; Wappler, F. A randomized controlled comparison of the Bonfils fiberscope and the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video laryngoscope for visualization of the larynx and intubation of the trachea in infants and small children with normal airways. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2013, 23, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Riveros, R.; Sung, W.; Sessler, D.I.; Sanchez, I.P.; Mendoza, M.L.; Mascha, E.J.; Niezgoda, J. Comparison of the Truview PCD and the GlideScope((R)) video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in pediatric patients: A randomized trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2013, 60, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Das, B.; Samanta, A.; Mitra, S.; Jamil, S.N. Comparative evaluation of Airtraq optical Laryngoscope and Miller’s blade in paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation: A randomized, controlled trial. Indian J. Anaesth. 2017, 61, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Giraudon, A.; Bordes-Demolis, M.; Blondeau, B.; Sibai de Panthou, N.; Ferrand, N.; Bello, M.; Dahlet, V.; Semjen, F.; Biais, M.; Nouette-Gaulain, K. Comparison of the McGrath((R)) MAC video laryngoscope with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy for novice laryngoscopists in children without difficult intubation: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2017, 36, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jagannathan, N.; Hajduk, J.; Sohn, L.; Huang, A.; Sawardekar, A.; Albers, B.; Bienia, S.; De Oliveira, G.S. Randomized equivalence trial of the King Vision aBlade videolaryngoscope with the Miller direct laryngoscope for routine tracheal intubation in children <2 yr of age. Br. J. Anaesth. 2017, 118, 932–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Konoike, Y.; Tsujimoto, T.; Syoji, Y.; Hananoka, T.; Abe, S.; Ohata, J. Comparison of McGRATH MAC, Airway scope, and Miller laryngoscope for pediatric tracheal intubation by novice anesthesiologists: A randomized clinical trial. Jpn. Clin. Pediatric Anesth. 2017, 23, 181–185. [Google Scholar]
  34. Singh, R.; Kumar, N.; Jain, A. A randomised trial to compare Truview PCD((R)), C-MAC((R)) and Macintosh laryngoscopes in paediatric airway management. Asian J. Anesthesiol. 2017, 55, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Vadi, M.G.; Roddy, K.J.; Ghazal, E.A.; Um, M.; Neiheisel, A.J.; Applegate, R.L., 2nd. Comparison of the GlideScope Cobalt(R) and Storz DCI(R) Video Laryngoscopes in Children Younger Than 2 Years of Age During Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Trainee Evaluation Study. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2017, 33, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jain, D.; Mehta, S.; Gandhi, K.; Arora, S.; Parikh, B.; Abas, M. Comparison of intubation conditions with CMAC Miller videolaryngoscope and conventional Miller laryngoscope in lateral position in infants: A prospective randomized trial. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2018, 28, 226–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, J.E.; Kwak, H.J.; Jung, W.S.; Chang, M.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y. A comparison between McGrath MAC videolaryngoscopy and Macintosh laryngoscopy in children. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2018, 62, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Orozco, J.A.; Rojas, J.L.; Medina-Vera, A.J. Haemodynamic response and effectiveness of tracheal intubation with Airtraq(R) versus Macintosh laryngoscope in paediatric patient undergoing elective surgery: Prospective, randomised and blind clinical trial. Rev. Española Anestesiol. Reanim. 2018, 65, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yoo, J.Y.; Chae, Y.J.; Lee, Y.B.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Kim, D.H. A comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope, McGrath video laryngoscope, and Pentax Airway Scope in paediatric nasotracheal intubation. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kilinc, L.; Cinar, A.S. Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope(R) for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni 2019, 53, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Okumura, Y.; Okuda, M.; Sato Boku, A.; Tachi, N.; Hashimoto, M.; Yamada, T.; Yamada, M. Usefulness of Airway Scope for intubation of infants with cleft lip and palate-comparison with Macintosh laryngoscope: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019, 19, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salama, E.R.; El Amrousy, D. GlideScope((R)) cobalt video laryngoscope versus direct Miller laryngoscope for lateral position-tracheal intubation in neonates with myelodysplasia: A prospective randomized study. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2019, 13, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pangasa, N.; Dali, J.S.; Sharma, K.R.; Arya, M.; Pachisia, A.V. Comparative evaluation of Truview evo2 and Macintosh laryngoscope for ease of orotracheal intubation in children—A prospective randomized controlled trial. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 35, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Tao, B.; Liu, K.; Zhao, P.; Wang, D.; Liu, Y.; Yin, H. Comparison of GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation in Neonates. Anesth. Analg. 2019, 129, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Couto, T.B.; Reis, A.G.; Farhat, S.C.L.; Carvalho, V.E.L.; Schvartsman, C. Changing the view: Video versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the pediatric emergency department. Medicine 2020, 99, e22289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Manirajan, M.; Bidkar, P.U.; Sivakumar, R.K.; Lata, S.; Srinivasan, G.; Jha, A.K. Comparison of paediatric King Vision videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for elective tracheal intubation in children of age less than 1 year: A randomised clinical trial. Indian J. Anaesth. 2020, 64, 943–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hajiyeva, K.; Can, O.S.; Baytas, V.; Yildirim Guclu, C. Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in pediatric patients: Randomized controlled trial. Turk. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2021, 27, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cormack, R.S.; Lehane, J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984, 39, 1105–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hoshijima, H.; Kuratani, N.; Hirabayashi, Y.; Takeuchi, R.; Shiga, T.; Masaki, E. Pentax Airway Scope(R) vs Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2014, 69, 911–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hoshijima, H.; Mihara, T.; Maruyama, K.; Denawa, Y.; Takahashi, M.; Shiga, T.; Nagasaka, H. McGrath videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. J. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 46, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Griesdale, D.E.; Chau, A.; Isac, G.; Ayas, N.; Foster, D.; Irwin, C.; Choi, P.; Canadian Critical Care Trials, G. Video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: A pilot randomized trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2012, 59, 1032–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Janz, D.R.; Semler, M.W.; Lentz, R.J.; Matthews, D.T.; Assad, T.R.; Norman, B.C.; Keriwala, R.D.; Ferrell, B.A.; Noto, M.J.; Shaver, C.M.; et al. Randomized Trial of Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 1980–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The risk of bias assessment. Green circles, red circles, and yellow circles indicate “low risk of bias”, “high risk of bias”, and “unclear risk of bias”, respectively.
Figure 1. The risk of bias assessment. Green circles, red circles, and yellow circles indicate “low risk of bias”, “high risk of bias”, and “unclear risk of bias”, respectively.
Children 09 01280 g001
Figure 2. Forest plot of the main results. (A) Forest plot of the intubation failure of tracheal intubation using the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. (B) Forest plot of glottic visualization with the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, Cormack–Lehane grade 1 and 2 vs. other grades. (C) Forest plot of intubation time for tracheal intubation using the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Figure 2. Forest plot of the main results. (A) Forest plot of the intubation failure of tracheal intubation using the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. (B) Forest plot of glottic visualization with the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, Cormack–Lehane grade 1 and 2 vs. other grades. (C) Forest plot of intubation time for tracheal intubation using the indirect laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Children 09 01280 g002
Figure 3. The results of primary (A) and secondary outcome (B,C) by P score ranking.
Figure 3. The results of primary (A) and secondary outcome (B,C) by P score ranking.
Children 09 01280 g003
Table 1. Patients Characteristics.
Table 1. Patients Characteristics.
AuthorYearType of LaryngoscopesNumber of ParticipantsPatients Age or WeightASA-PSAirway Condition
1Hajiyeva K2021Macintosh2810–40 kgⅠ–ⅢNormal
C-MAC28
2Manirajan M2020Macintosh390–1 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
King Vision39
3Couto TB2020Macintosh1411–19 yN/ADifficult (Emergency department)
McGrath50
4Yi IK2019Macintosh681–10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
AWS68
5Tao B2019Macintosh35≦28 dⅠ–ⅡNo limitation
Glidescope35
6Pangasa N2019Macintosh252–8 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Truview EVO225
7Salama ER2019Miller30≦28 dⅠ–ⅡNormal
Glidescope30
8Okumura Y2019Macintosh203–11 mNormal
AWS20
9Kılınç L2019Macintosh401–12 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Glidescope40
10Yoo JY2018Macintosh361–10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
AWS35
McGrath35
11Orozco JA2018Macintosh402–8 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
AWS40
12Kim JE2018Macintosh421–10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
McGrath42
13Jain D2018Miller32<1 yⅠ–ⅢDifficult (lateral position)
C-MAC31
14Vadi MG2017Miller312–24 mⅠ–ⅢDifficult (MILS)
Glidescope31
Storz DCI31
15Singh R2017Macintosh501–6 yⅠ–ⅡNo limitation
C-MAC50
Truview PCD50
16Konoike Y2017Miller291.7–6 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
AWS30
McGrath31
17Jagannathan N2017Miller100<2 yN/ANormal
King Vision100
18Giraudon A2017Macintosh6710–20 kgⅠ–ⅡNormal
McGrath65
19Das B2017Miller302–10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Airtraq30
20Patil VV2016Macintosh308–18 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
C-MAC30
21Riveros R2013Macintosh450–10 yⅠ–ⅢNormal
Glidescope44
Truview PCD45
22Kaufmann J2013Glidescope47<7 yNormal
Bonfils44
23Ali QE2013Macintosh171–5 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Airtraq17
24White MC2012Macintosh300–6 m, 6 m–6 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Airtraq30
25Valatten A2012Macintosh25≦5 yN/ANormal
Airtraq24
26Riad W2012Macintosh252–10 yNormal
Airtraq25
27Fiadjoe JE2012Macintosh30≦12 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Glidescope30
28Kim HJ2011Macintosh40<10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Glidescope40
29Nileshwar A2010Macintosh202–10 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Bullard20
30Inal MT2010Miller252–8 yN/AN/A
Truview EVO225
31Sihgh R2009Miller301–10 kgN/AN/A
Truview EVO230
32Redel A2009Macintosh307 m–10 yⅠ–ⅢNormal
Glidescope30
33Macnair D2009Macintosh302–16 yⅠ–ⅡNormal
Storz DCI30
34Kim JT2008Macintosh1003 m–17 yN/ANo limitation
Glidescope103
y: year, m: month, N/A: not available, ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, MILS: manual in-line stabilization.
Table 2. Summary of findings table for primary outcome.
Table 2. Summary of findings table for primary outcome.
Patients: pediatric patients who received tracheal intubationChildren 09 01280 i001
Interventions: indirect laryngoscope, miller laryngoscope
Comparator (reference): macintosh laryngoscope
Outcome: failure of tracheal intubation at first attempt
Setting: elective surgery
Total studies: 31 RCT
Total Participants: 1930
Relative effect
(95% CI)
Certainty of evidenceReasons for
downgrading
P score
Airtraq
(1 RCT; 34 participants)
0.27 (0.04–1.61)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.90
Airway scope
(2 RCT; 137 participants)
0.50 (0.16–1.51)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.81
Bonfils
(1 RCT; 84 participants)
1.08 (0.10–11.3)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.57
Bullard
(1 RCT; 40 participants)
19.0 (0.91–398.0)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and heterogeneity0.08
C-MAC
(3 RCT; 256 participants)
1.16 (0.25–5.45)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.55
Glidescope
(5 RCT; 408 participants)
1.52 (0.58–4.00)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.45
King Vision
(1 RCT; 78 participants)
4.23 (0.43–41.5)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.23
Macintosh
(13 RCT; 659 participants)
No estimableReference comparatorNo estimable0.60
McGrath
(3 RCT; 347 participants)
0.55 (0.20–1.51)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.79
Miller
(8 RCT; 594 participants)
1.41 (0.48–4.18)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.48
Storz DCI
(1 RCT; 62 participants)
2.87 (0.52–15.7)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.28
Truview EVO2
(1 RCT; 60 participants)
0.94 (0.09–10.2)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.60
Truview PCD
(2 RCT; 142 participants)
4.78 (1.11–20.6)◯◯◯
Low
Risk of bias and imprecision0.17
RCT: Randomized controlled trial, CI: Confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoshijima, H.; Mihara, T.; Kokubu, S.; Takeda, S.; Shiga, T.; Mizuta, K. Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Children 2022, 9, 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9091280

AMA Style

Hoshijima H, Mihara T, Kokubu S, Takeda S, Shiga T, Mizuta K. Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Children. 2022; 9(9):1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9091280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoshijima, Hiroshi, Takahiro Mihara, Shinichi Kokubu, Sakura Takeda, Toshiya Shiga, and Kentaro Mizuta. 2022. "Effectiveness of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis" Children 9, no. 9: 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9091280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop