Comparative randomised study of GlideScope ® video laryngoscope versus flexible fibre-optic bronchoscope for awake nasal intubation of oropharyngeal cancer patients with anticipated difficult intubation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Awake flexible fibre-optic bronchoscope (FFS) is the standard method of intubation in difficult airway in oral cancer patients. We decided to evaluate GlideScope® video laryngoscope (GL) for intubation as compared to the standard FFS for nasal intubation in such patients.

METHODS: After the ethical committee approval, we included 54 oropharyngeal cancer patients divided randomly into two equal groups: Group G and Group F. After pre-medication and pre-oxygenation, awake nasal intubation was performed using GL in Group G and FFS in Group F. In both groups, we compared intubation time in seconds (mean ± standard deviation) (primary outcome), success rate of the first intubation attempt, percentage of Cormack and Lehane glottic score and incidence of complications. We assumed that GL could be a suitable alternative for the standard FFS in nasal intubation of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Success rate of the first attempt and Cormack and Lehane glottic score were compared using Chi-square test.

RESULTS: Intubation time in seconds was significantly shorter in Group G (70.85 ± 8.88 S) than in Group F (90.26 ± 9.41 S) with ( P < 0.001). The success rate of the first attempt intubation was slightly higher in Group G (81.5%) than Group F (78.8%). Cormack and Lehane glottic Score I and II showed insignificant difference between both Group G (92.6%) and Group F (96.3%). We detected three cases of sore throat in each group.

CONCLUSION: GlideScope® could be a suitable alternative to FFS in nasal intubation of oropharyngeal cancer patients.