The available meta-analyses have inconclusively indicated the advantages of video-laryngoscopy (VL) in different clinical situations; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine efficacy outcomes such as successful first attempt or time to perform endotracheal intubation as well as adverse events of VL vs. direct laryngoscopes (DL) for double-lumen intubation. First intubation attempt success rate was 87.9% for VL and 84.5% for DL (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.86; I2 = 61%; p = 0.08). Overall success rate was 99.8% for VL and 98.8% for DL, respectively (OR = 3.89; 95%CI: 0.95 to 15.93; I2 = 0; p = 0.06). Intubation time for VL was 43.4 ± 30.4 s compared to 54.0 ± 56.3 s for DL (MD = -11.87; 95%CI: -17.06 to -6.68; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Glottic view based on Cormack-Lehane grades 1 or 2 equaled 93.1% and 88.1% in the VL and DL groups, respectively (OR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.41; I2 = 63%; p = 0.02). External laryngeal manipulation was needed in 18.4% cases of VL compared with 42.8% for DL (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.40; I2 = 69%; p < 0.001). For double-lumen intubation, VL offers shorter intubation time, better glottic view based on Cormack-Lehane grade, and a lower need for ELM, but comparable first intubation attempt success rate and overall intubation success rate compared with DL.
Keywords: double-lumen tube; endotracheal intubation; meta-analysis; one-lung ventilation; randomized controlled trials; systematic review.