KING VISION™ VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPE VERSUS MACINTOSH LARYNGOSCOPE: A META-ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON APPLICABILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/levv16n51-097Keywords:
Developing Countries, Laringoscope, Videolaringoscope, Orotracheal IntubationAbstract
Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the King Vision™ low-cost videolaryngoscope with the traditional Macintosh laryngoscope in orotracheal intubation, focusing on its applicability in resource-limited settings.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, and EMBASE (2020–2025). Included studies were randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies evaluating King Vision™ versus Macintosh in clinical settings. Outcomes included first-attempt intubation success, time to intubation, complications, and cost considerations. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.
Results: Four studies with 348 patients were included. The King Vision™ showed a trend toward higher first-attempt success (RR 1.10; 95% CI: 0.99–1.22; p = 0.08), though not statistically significant. Time to intubation was longer with videolaryngoscopy (mean difference: +11.53 seconds; 95% CI: +7.00 to +16.05; p < 0.001). All studies reported better glottic visualization with videolaryngoscopes, supported by improved Cormack-Lehane grades and glottic opening scores. Serious complications were rare, and the need for rescue maneuvers was reduced. Most studies had low or moderate risk of bias. King Vision™ demonstrated economic advantages, with significantly lower cost than high-end devices and no major loss in performance.
Conclusion: King Vision™ videolaryngoscope showed comparable or superior clinical performance to the Macintosh, especially regarding first-attempt success and glottic visualization. Despite slightly longer intubation times, it remains a viable and cost-effective alternative in low-resource settings. Further research is needed to strengthen these findings in broader contexts.
Downloads
References
Brozek, T., Bruthans, J., Porizka, M., Blaha, J., Ulrichova, J., & Michalek, P. (2020). A randomized comparison of non-channeled GlidescopeTM titanium versus channeled KingVisionTM videolaryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in obese patients with BMI > 35 kg·m⁻². Diagnostics, 10(12), 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121024
Choudhary, J., Barai, A. K., Das, S., & Mukherjee, N. (2021). Evaluation of the use of the channeled King Vision video laryngoscope in improving glottic visualisation in patients with limited glottic view with the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective observational study. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 65(12), 874–879. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_905_21
Davies, M., & Hodzovic, I. (2021). Videolaryngoscopy post COVID-19. Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care, 36, 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2020.09.006
De Jong, A., Chanques, G., & Jaber, S. (2017). Mechanical ventilation in obese ICU patients: From intubation to extubation. Critical Care, 21(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1641-1
Dority, J., Hassan, Z.-U., & Chau, D. (2011). Anesthetic implications of obesity in the surgical patient. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 24(4), 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1295685
Granell, M., Parra, M. J., Jiménez, M. J., Gallart, L., Villalonga, A., Valencia, O., … Calvo, J. M. (2018). Review of difficult airway management in thoracic surgery. Revista Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (English Edition), 65(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2017.11.013
Jung, H. (2023). A comprehensive review of difficult airway management strategies for patient safety. Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 18(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23123
Kamal, S., Ali, Q. E., Amir, S. H., Ahmed, S., & Pal, K. (2016). King Vision video laryngoscope versus Lightwand as an intubating device in adult patients with Mallampatti grade III and IV patients. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 34, 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.05.027
Kriege, M., Alflen, C., & Noppens, R. R. (2017). Using King Vision video laryngoscope with a channeled blade prolongs time for tracheal intubation in different training levels, compared to non-channeled blade. PloS One, 12(8), e0183382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183382
Langeron, O., Amour, J., Vivien, B., & Aubrun, F. (2006). Clinical review: Management of difficult airways. Critical Care, 10(6), 243. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5112
Lascarrou, J. B., Boisrame-Helms, J., Bailly, A., Le Thuaut, A., Kamel, T., Mercier, E., … Clinical Research in Intensive Care and Sepsis (CRICS) Group. (2017). Video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass orotracheal intubation among ICU patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 317(5), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.20603
Manirajan, M., Bidkar, P. U., Sivakumar, R. K., Lata, S., Srinivasan, G., & Jha, A. K. (2020). Comparison of paediatric King VisionTM videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope for elective tracheal intubation in children of age less than 1 year: A randomised clinical trial. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 64(11), 943–948. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_154_20
Pieters, B. M. A., Maas, E. H. A., Knape, J. T. A., & van Zundert, A. A. J. (2017). Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia, 72(12), 1532–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14057
Raja, R., Gupta, S., Mehta, N., & Attal, P. (2022). First-pass success rate and number of attempts required for intubation in anticipated difficult airway: Comparison between Macintosh and channeled King Vision video laryngoscopes. Anesthesia, Essays and Researches, 16(3), 340–344. https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_68_22
Sahoo, S., Singh, N., Mohanty, C. R., Hansda, U., Sahoo, J., & Sahu, A. (2021). Macintosh laryngoscope versus AMBU King Vision video laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation using a COVID-19 barrier box: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, 11(3), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_34_21
Saracoglu, A., Saracoglu, K., Sorbello, M., Çakmak, G., & Greif, R. (2023). The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on videolaryngoscopy: A cross-sectional before-and-after survey. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 55(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.129278
Saul, S. A., Ward, P. A., & McNarry, A. F. (2023). Airway management: The current role of videolaryngoscopy. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091327
Shravanalakshmi, D., Bidkar, P. U., Narmadalakshmi, K., Lata, S., Mishra, S. K., & Adinarayanan, S. (2017). Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial. Surgical Neurology International, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.199560
Turner, J. S., Falvo, L. E., Ahmed, R. A., Ellender, T. J., Corson-Knowles, D., Bona, A. M., … Cooper, D. D. (2020). Effect of an aerosol box on intubation in simulated emergency department airways: A randomized crossover study. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21(6), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2020.8.48901
