Skip to main content
Log in

Indirekte Laryngoskopie/Videolaryngoskopie

Übersicht über in Deutschland verwendete Instrumente in der Notfall- und Intensivmedizin

Indirect laryngoscopy/video laryngoscopy

A review of devices used in emergency and intensive care medicine in Germany

Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Atemwegssicherung auf der Intensivstation oder in der Notfallmedizin ist anspruchsvoll und häufig mit lebensbedrohlichen Komplikationen assoziiert. Eine Innovation im Bereich des Airway-Managements ist die indirekte Laryngoskopie mithilfe von Videolaryngoskopen. Die Methode beruht auf einer Digitalkamera oder einem optischen System an der Spitze eines Laryngoskopiespatels, wodurch ein indirekter „Blick um die Ecke“ auf die Stimmbänder ermöglicht wird. Studien zeigen, dass die Vorteile von Videolaryngoskopen besonders bei einer schwierigen Intubation zum Tragen kommen. Der erfolgreiche Einsatz bei einer problematischen Atemwegssicherung setzt allerdings eine regelmäßige Anwendung in der täglichen Routine unter möglichst kontrollierten Bedingungen voraus. In der Übersicht werden in Deutschland eingesetzte indirekte Laryngoskope beschrieben und aktuelle Studienergebnisse zu dieser neuen Technik vorgestellt.

Abstract

Airway management in intensive care or emergency medicine is particularly challenging and is often associated with life-threatening complications. An innovation in the field of airway management is the use of indirect laryngoscopy by means of video laryngoscopes. A digital camera or an optical system at the tip of a laryngoscope blade enables an indirect “look around the corner” to the glottis. Studies have shown that the advantages of video laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation are particularly beneficial in difficult airway situations. However, the successful use in challenging intubations requires experience and regular use in daily practice. This review gives an overview of indirect laryngoscopes commonly used in Germany and also presents new study results for these novel devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12

Literatur

  1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J et al (2011) Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth 106:632–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Timmermann A, Eich C, Russo SG et al (2006) Prehospital airway management: a prospective evaluation of anaesthesia trained emergency physicians. Resuscitation 70:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cobas MA, De la Peña MA, Manning R et al (2009) Prehospital intubations and mortality: a level 1 trauma center perspective. Anesth Analg 109:489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Noppens RR, Geimer S, Eisle N et al (2012) Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective, comparative study in the ICU. Crit Care 16:R103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM et al (2011) 3,423 emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital: airway outcomes and complications. Anesthesiology 114:42–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dhonneur G, Ndoko SK, Amathieu R et al (2007) A comparison of two techniques for inserting the Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesia 62:774–777

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hofstetter C, Scheller B, Flondor M et al (2006) Videolaryngoskopie versus direkte Laryngoskopie zur elektiven endotrachealen Intubation. Anaesthesist 55:535–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Osborn IP, Behringer EC, Kramer DC (2007) Difficult airway management following supratentorial craniotomy: a useful maneuver with a new device. Anesth Analg 105:552–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lu Y, Jiang H, Zhu YS (2011) Airtraq laryngoscope versus conventional Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 66:1160–1167

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology 116:629–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J et al (2012) Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth 59:41–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Noppens RR, Möbus S, Heid F et al (2010) Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 65:716–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeon WJ, Kim KH, Yeom JH et al (2011) A comparison of the Glidescope® to the McGrath® videolaryngoscope in patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 61:19–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL et al (2012) Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth 109:439−443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wetsch WA, Spelten O, Hellmich M et al (2011) Comparison of different video laryngoscopes for emergency intubation in a standardized airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by experienced anaesthetists. A randomized, controlled crossover trial. Resuscitation 83:740–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mulcaster JT, Mills J, Hung OR et al (2003) Laryngoscopic intubation: learning and performance. Anesthesiology 98:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Konrad C, Schüpfer G, Wietlisbach M et al (1998) Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: Is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures? Anesth Analg 86:635–639

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Timmermann A, Byhahn C, Wenzel V et al (2012) Handlungsempfehlung für das präklinische Atemwegsmanagement. Anästh Intensivmed 53:294–308

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maharaj CH, Costello JF, Higgins BD et al (2006) Learning and performance of tracheal intubation by novice personnel: a comparison of the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 61:671–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan MB, Hagberg CA, Ward DS et al (2006) Comparison of direct and video-assisted views of the larynx during routine intubation. J Clin Anesth 18:357–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Piepho T, Weinert K, Heid FM et al (2011) Comparison of the McGrath® Series 5 and GlideScope® Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 19:4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Trimmel H, Kreutziger J, Fertsak G et al (2011) Use of the Airtraq laryngoscope for emergency intubation in the prehospital setting: a randomized control trial. Crit Care Med 39:489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Frohlich S, Borovickova L, Foley E et al (2011) A comparison of tracheal intubation using the McGrath or the Macintosh laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28:465–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ et al (2005) Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth 52:191–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cuchillo JV, Rodríguez MA (2005) Considerations aimed at facilitating the use of the new GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Can J Anesth 52:661 (author reply 661–662)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang WT, Huang CY, Chung YT (2007) Clinical comparisons between GlideScope® video laryngoscope and Trachlight® in simulated cervical spine instability. J Clin Anesth 19:110–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones PM, Turkstra TP, Armstrong KP et al (2007) Effect of stylet angulation and endotracheal tube camber on time to intubation with the GlideScope. Can J Anesth 54:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Turkstra TP, Harle CC, Armstrong KP et al (2007) The GlideScope-specific rigid stylet and standard malleable stylet are equally effective for GlideScope use. Can J Anesth 54:891–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zundert A van, Maassen R, Lee R et al (2009) A Macintosh laryngoscope blade for videolaryngoscopy reduces stylet use in patients with normal airways. Anesth Analg 109:825–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D (2007) Case series: the McGrath videolaryngoscope − an initial clinical evaluation. Can J Anesth 54:307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee RA, Zundert AA van, Maassen RL et al (2012) Forces applied to the maxillary incisors by video laryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56:224–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Russell T, Khan S, Elman J et al (2012) Measurement of forces applied during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 67:626–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lange M, Frommer M, Redel A et al (2009) Comparison of the Glidescope and Airtraq optical laryngoscopes in patients undergoing direct microlaryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 64:323–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooper RM (2007) Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Can J Anesth 54:54–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Malik AM, Frogel JK (2007) Anterior tonsillar pillar perforation during GlideScope video laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 104:1610–1611 (discussion 1611)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Leary AM, Sandison MR, Myneni N et al (2008) Preliminary evaluation of a novel videolaryngoscope, the McGrath series 5, in the management of difficult and challenging endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth 20:320–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an: Die Firmen Ambu GmbH, Karl-Storz GmbH, Aircraft Medical Ltd., The Surgical Company GmbH, VBM Medizintechnik GmbH und Verathon Medical unterstützen bzw. unterstützten diverse Studien und Ausbildungskurse mit dem Fokus „Atemwegsmanagement“ der Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. R. Noppens.

Zusatzmaterial online

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pirlich, N., Piepho, T., Gervais, H. et al. Indirekte Laryngoskopie/Videolaryngoskopie. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 107, 521–530 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-012-0090-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-012-0090-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation