PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Anesthesia and Pain Medicine· 2026Q2

Clinical comparison of midline versus right-sided video laryngoscope insertion for endotracheal intubation in difficult airways: a randomized controlled trial

Philipp Brandhorst, Anne Hampel, Stephan Vögeler, Sascha Treskatsch et al.

Short summary

In anticipated difficult airways, midline insertion of a C-MAC® video laryngoscope blade yielded no significant difference in glottic view (Cormack–Lehane score) compared to traditional right-sided insertion (median 2.0 vs. 2.0; P=0.089) in 162 adult patients.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Midline VLS insertion showed no significant difference in glottic view (C/L score) compared to right-sided insertion in anticipated difficult airways (P=0.089).
  • No significant differences were observed in Arné scores, first-pass success, duration of airway management, or complications between the groups.
  • The findings were consistent across different anesthesiologist experience levels (specialists vs. residents with 1-2 months training).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Background: Video laryngoscopy (VLS) is a common tool for airway management. During conventional intubation, the blade is inserted from the right side, moving the tongue toward the left side to provide a direct view. Recent clinical evidence suggests that VLS midline insertion may provide a better glottic view in non-difficult airways.Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we compared midline vs. right-sided VLS insertion (C-MAC®) for anticipated difficult airways. The study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery who required primary VLS intubation. The primary endpoint was the Cormack–Lehane (C/L) score derived from the VLS. Secondary endpoints included the duration of airway management, complications, first-pass success, Arné score, and anesthetist experience level.Results: Patients (n = 162) were randomized into Midline (M; n = 80) and Right-sided (R; n = 82) study groups. The median (1Q, 3Q) C/L was 2.0 (2.0, 2.5) for M and 2.0 (1.0, 2.5) for R; P = 0.089. No difference was observed in Arné scores (P = 0.224), first-pass success (P > 0.999), duration of airway management (P = 0.612), or complications (P = 0.907). No significant difference (P = 0.324) was observed in C/L score between the specialists (n = 42) and residents with 1 and 2 months of training (n = 53).Conclusions: No significant difference was found in the glottic view based on the insertion point of the blade (midline or right) or the duration of airway management. This was independent of the experience level of the anesthesiologist performing the procedure.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineMedicine