A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing TAScope (The Anaesthetic Society Scope) and Non-Channelled Video Laryngoscope for Airway Management in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31636/pmjua.v10i3-4.2Keywords:
Prospective study, video laryngoscopy, TAScope, non-channeled video laryngoscope, airway management, intubationAbstract
Background
Video laryngoscopes improve tracheal intubation success, but evidence comparing channeled devices (TAScope- The anaesthetic society scope) with non-channeled video laryngoscopes is limited. This prospective randomized controlled trial evaluated their comparative efficacy and safety.
Objectives
- Primary: Compare the number of intubations attempts between channeled (TAScope) and non-channeled video laryngoscopes.
- Secondary: Assess intubation time, frequency of additional maneuvers, hemodynamic changes, and airway complications.
Methods
Two hundred adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to TAScope (n = 100) or a non-channeled video laryngoscope (n = 100). Data were collected prospectively by blinded research personnel. Statistical analyses included chi-square, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and repeated measures ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Results
The median number of intubation attempts was significantly lower with TAScope (1 [IQR: 1–1]) versus the non-channeled device (2 [IQR: 1–3]; p < 0.001). Intubation times were comparable (38.5 ± 6.2 seconds for TAScope vs. 40.1 ± 7.8 seconds; p = 0.08). TAScope required fewer additional maneuvers (22% vs. 45%; p < 0.001) and caused less pronounced hemodynamic changes post-intubation (p < 0.05). Airway complications were less frequent with TAScope (8%) than the non-channeled device (18%; p = 0.03). Subgroup analysis showed TAScope performed better in difficult airways (Mallampati ≥3 or Cormack-Lehane ≥3).
Conclusion
TAScope demonstrated superior performance over non-channeled video laryngoscopes, with fewer intubation attempts, reduced need for additional maneuvers, better hemodynamic stability, and fewer complications. These findings suggest TAScope may be advantageous in anticipated difficult airways or for less experienced operators.
Downloads
References
1.Bradley JS, Billows GL, Olinger ML, Boha SP, Cordell WH, Nelson DR. Prehospital oral endotracheal intubations by rural basic emergency medical technicians. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:26–2. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70095-2.
2.Hoshijima H, Kuratani N, Hirabayashi Y, Takeuchi R, Shiga T, Masaki E. Pentax airway scope (R) vs Macintoshlaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:911–8. doi: 10.1111/anae.12705.
3.Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:191–8. doi: 10.1007/BF03027728.
4.Cooper RM. Use of a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in the management of a difficult airway. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50:611–3. doi: 10.1007/BF03018651.
5.Maharaj CH, O’Croinin D, Curley G, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the airtraqor the Macintoshlaryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomised, controlled clinical trial. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:1093–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04819.x.
6.Dave M. Tascope – Innovative Intubation Aid. Journal of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Case Reports Sep-Dec. 2018;4(3):9–10.
7.Kriege M, Christian A, Irene T. Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: The randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7:1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016907.
8.Teoh W, Saxena S, Shah M, Sia A. Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC™, Glidescope® vs the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation*.Anaesthesia. 2010;65(11):1126–1132. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06513.x.
9.Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscope via Macintosh blade versus Glidoscope: Success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anaesthesiology. 2009;110:32–7. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318190b6a7.
10.Riveros R, Sung W, Sessler DI, Sanchez IP, Mendoza ML, Mascha EJ, et al. Comparison of the Truview PCD™ and the GlideScope(®) video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in pediatric patients: A randomized trial. Can J Anesth. 2013;60:450–7. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9906-x.
11. Shin KW, Lee SP, Kim T, Choi S, Kim YJ, Park HP, Oh H. Channelled versus nonchannelled Macintosh videolaryngoscope blades in patients with a cervical collar: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Can J Anaesth. 2024 Sep;71(9):1261-1271. doi: 10.1007/s12630-024-02769-3. COMPARISON OF CHANNELLED BLADE WITH NON-CHANNELLED BLADE OF KING VISION VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPE FOR OROTRACHEAL INTUBATION R.Ganesapandian1, C.Karpagavalli2, T.V.Sathya3
12. Shah, Amit; Patwa, Apeksh1; Burra, Vijitha2; Shah, Deepshikha; Gandhi, Bhavin1. Comparison of Channelled Blade with Non-channelled Blade of King Vision™ Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation: A Randomised, Controlled, Multicentric Study. Airway 2(1):p 10-16, Jan–Apr 2019. | DOI: 10.4103/ARWY.ARWY_8_19
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nivedita Vadodaria, Smit Solanki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
