This study entitled “A Prospective Randomized Study To Compare  King Vision Video Laryngoscope And McGrath Video Laryngoscope In Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy” was performed to compare the two different laryngoscopes.

60 ASA physical status I and II of either sex (20-60 yrs. of age) undergoing general anaesthesia for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery were included in the study. Patients with all MP class were included. After obtaining approval from Board of studies Department of Anaesthesiology and Institutional ethical committee, patients were randomly divided into two groups. Patients of KV Group [N=30] were intubated using King Vision video laryngoscope and patients of MV Group [N=30] were intubated using McGrath video laryngoscope. Blinding of the attending laryngoscopists was not possible as the two laryngoscopes were markedly different.

All patients in the both groups were monitored using  all standard monitors; female patients were intubated with 7.0 mm PVC ETT (endotracheal tube) whereas male patients were intubated with 8.0 mm PVC ETT

The King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs were compared with each other with respect to laryngoscopy and intubation time, changes in heart rate and blood pressure after intubation at different interval of time, number of attempts for successful intubation, number of adjustment maneuvers, ease of tracheal intubation and post extubation complications.

Of all the patients who were intubated; 93.33% of the patients were intubated in single attempt with King Vision VLs as compared to 70% with McGrath VLs. However second attempts intubation rate was 100% both in King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs. Among the two instruments none had taken more than two attempts for successful intubation. 

The King Vision VLs did required less adjustment maneuvers as compared to McGrath VLs. 10% and 46.66% patients required more than two adjustment maneuvers in King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs respectively.

The incidence of ease of intubation grade 1 with King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs was 90% and 63.33% respectively. However 10% and 36.66% patients had grade II ease of intubation in King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs respectively. Among the two instrument none had shown a failed intubation.

The mean intubation time was 12.56 second and 22.2 seconds in King Vision VLs and McGrath VLs respectively. McGrath VLs required more time than King Vision VLs to intubate the patients.

In both groups; there was a significant rise in heart rate from pre induction value to immediate post intubation, 3 and 5 minute of post intubation but came down near to pre induction value within 10 minutes of intubation. In inter group comparison between two groups at a time, variation in heart rate did show statistically significant rise with McGrath VLs as compared to King Vision VLs during 3 min post intubation.

Both groups showed significant change in MABP at post intubation period, although comparatively lesser in KV group. Rise in MABP was statistically significant at immediate post intubation and 3 minute post intubation time.

The incidence of complications like sore throat, blood staining on ETT and hoarseness after extubation was less in KV group as compared to MV group.