Conventional videolaryngoscope versus 3D printed videolaryngoscope

Kamil Varlık Erel 1, Nagehan Ümit Karacan 2 *
More Detail
1 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey
2 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk University Research and Training Hospital, Karabük, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
J CLIN MED KAZ, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp. 60-64.
OPEN ACCESS 222 Views 116 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


Background and objectives: In patients with Covid-19, using a video laryngoscope as an alternative to direct laryngoscopy is recommended to protect the intubator from infection and reduce intubation failures due to personal protective equipment. The cost of video laryngoscopes limits their availability in all healthcare institutions. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 3D printed video laryngoscope and conventional video laryngoscope on intubation.
Material and methods: 30 ASA I-II patients who were not considered to have a difficult airway were included in the study after obtaining the ethics committee approval from Adnan Menderes University Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 and group 2. After the induction of anesthesia under standard monitoring, the Cormack Lehane score was recorded by direct laryngoscopy in all patients. Patients in group 1 were intubated with a 3D-printed video laryngoscope. In contrast, patients in group 2 were intubated with a conventional video laryngoscope (STORZ C-mac videolaryngoscope). Intubation time, number of attempts, and hemodynamic values of patients with early postoperative complications were recorded. The data were recorded and statistically evaluated.
Results: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding demographic data, BMI, and hemodynamic data. The Cormack Lehane score was calculated as 1.6±0.51 in group 1 and 1.4±0.51 in group 2 (p=0.38). Intubation times of the groups were 32.6±18 s and 27.06±11.37 s, respectively (p=0.4). The number of intubation attempts was 1.2±0.63 in group 1 and 1±0.01 in group 2 (p=0.31). The image quality of the camera by the intubator, intubation conditions, and intubation satisfaction was similar in the two groups.
Conclusion: Comparing a 3D-printed videolaryngoscope with a conventional videolaryngoscope, no differences were observed in intubation times, number of intubation attempts, hemodynamic changes, and early postoperative complications. Intubation satisfaction values by the practitioner were found to be similar. It was concluded that the 3D-printed videolaryngoscope, which is cost-effective and easy to access, can be used instead of conventional videolaryngoscope in patients with a normal airway.


Erel KV, Ümit Karacan N. Conventional videolaryngoscope versus 3D printed videolaryngoscope. J CLIN MED KAZ. 2023;20(5):60-4.


  • Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Pessoa-Silva CL, Conly J. Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review. PloS one. 2012;7(4):e35797.
  • Schumacher J, Arlidge J, Dudley D, Sicinski M, Ahmad I. The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(10):1301-6.
  • El‐Boghdadly K, Wong D, Owen R, Neuman M, Pocock S, Carlisle J, et al. Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with covid-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(11):1437-47.
  • Choi J, Lee Y, Kang GH, Jang YS, Kim W, Choi HY, et al. Educational suitability of new channel-type video-laryngoscope with AI-based glottis guidance system for novices wearing personal-protective-equipment. Medicine. 2022;101(9).
  • Thiruvenkatarajan V, Wong DT, Kothandan H, Sekhar V, Adhikary SD, Currie J, et al. Airway management in the operating room and interventional suites in known or suspected covid-19 adult patients: a practical review. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2020;131(3):677-89.
  • Puthenveettil N, Rahman S, Vijayaraghavan S, Suresh S, Kadapamannil D, Paul J. Comparison of aerosol box intubation with c-mac video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy A randomised controlled trial. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2021;65(2):133.
  • Altun D, Ali A, Çamcı E, Özonur A, Seyhan TÖ. Haemodynamic response to four different laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2018;46(6):434.
  • Stoelting R. Circulatory changes during direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: influence of duration of laryngoscopy with or without proir lidocaine. Survey of Anesthesiology. 1978;22(4):338.
  • Dashti M, Amini S, Azarfarin R, Totonchi Z, Hatami M. Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation with glidescope® video-laryngoscope in patients with untreated hypertension. Research in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2014;3(2).
  • Nair SM, Menon GD, George M, Issac E, Bhaskaran R. Comparison of performance characteristics of c-mac video, mccoy, and macintosh laryngoscopes in elective cervical spine surgery. Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology. 2021;37(4):569.
  • El‐Boghdadly K, Bailey C, Wiles M. Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(6):706-17.