Is McGrath® MAC better than Glidescope® Ranger for novice providers in the simulated difficult airway? A randomized manikin study
- Authors
- Kim, Wonhe; Choi, Hyuk Joong; Lim, Taeho; Kang, Bo Seung; Oh, Jae hoon; Lee, Sanghyun
- Issue Date
- Oct-2014
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Citation
- Resuscitation, v.85, no.S1, pp 32 - 32
- Pages
- 1
- Indexed
- SCI
SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- Resuscitation
- Volume
- 85
- Number
- S1
- Start Page
- 32
- End Page
- 32
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/142572
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.083
- ISSN
- 0300-9572
1873-1570
- Abstract
- Purpose of this study: McGrath® MAC and Glidescope® Ranger are portable video laryngoscopes that are easy to learn for novice and useful in difficult airway environment. We anticipated that McGrath® MAC would show performance in intubation of novices as equal as Glidescope® Ranger in normal and difficult airway.
Materials and Methods: Primary outcomes were the rate of successful intubation, intubation time and overall glottic view of McGrath® MAC, Glidescope® Ranger and Macintosh. We performed a prospective, single-blinded, randomized crossover study of 39 medical students using three laryngoscopes in a manikin, with simulated normal and difficult airway scenarios.
Results: The successful intubation rate of McGrath® MAC (82.5 (38.5)%) was better than Macintosh (57.5 (50.1)%; p = 0.026) and equal to Glidescope® Ranger (85 (36.2)%) at first attempt of easy scenario. However, McGrath® MAC was equal to Macintosh and Glidescope® Ranger from second to fifth attempt. The intubation time of McGrath® MAC (24.4 (14.7) s) was also equal to Glidescope® Ranger (22.2 (8.7) s) and Macintosh laryngoscopes (25.4 (12.2) s). The glottic view of McGrath® MAC (1 (1–1)) was superior to Macintosh (2 (1–2); P = 0.000) and equal to Glidescope® Ranger (1 (1-1)).
Novices achieved an equal successful intubation rate when using the McGrath® MAC (94.9 (22.1)%) comparing with Glidescope® Ranger (93.3 (25)%) and Macintosh (92.3 (26.7)%) in difficult scenario (p = 0.725). Intubation times were also similar for three laryngoscopes and became shorter with practice (p = 0.000). The view at laryngoscopy with the McGrath® MAC was better than Macintosh (p = 0.000) and not superior to Glidescope® Ranger (p = 0.001).
Conclusions: The rate for successful intubation and intubation time with McGrath® MAC in novices were equal to Glidescope® Ranger and Macintosh laryngoscope. Novices achieved a better glottic view with McGrath® MAC than Macintosh and not in comparison to Glidescope® Ranger in both of airway environments.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 서울 의과대학 > 서울 응급의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.