Double-lumen intubation is more difficult than single-lumen tracheal intubation. Videolaryngoscopes have many advantages in airway management. However, the advantages of videolaryngoscopy for intubation with a double-lumen tube remain controversial compared with traditional Macintosh laryngoscopy. In this study, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials comparing videolaryngoscopy with Macintosh laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation. We found that videolaryngoscopy provided a higher success rate at first attempt for double-lumen tube intubation, with an odds ratio (95%CI) of 2.77 (1.92-4.00) (12 studies, 1215 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p < 0.00001), as well as a lower incidence of oral, mucosal or dental injuries during double-lumen tube intubation, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.36 (0.15-0.85) (11 studies, 1145 patients, low-quality evidence, p = 0.02), and for postoperative sore throat, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.54 (0.36-0.81) (7 studies, 561 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p = 0.003), compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy. There were no significant differences in intubation time, with a standardised mean difference (95%CI) of -0.10 (-0.62 to 0.42) (14 studies, 1310 patients, very low-quality evidence, p = 0.71); and the incidence of postoperative voice change, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.53 (0.21-1.31) (7 studies, 535 patients, low-quality evidence, p = 0.17). Videolaryngoscopy led to a higher incidence of malpositioned double-lumen tube, with an odds ratio (95%CI) of 2.23 (1.10-4.52) (six studies, 487 patients, moderate-quality evidence, p = 0.03).
Keywords: double-lumen tube; intubation; videolaryngoscope.
© 2018 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.