Flexible Intubation Scope versus Flexible Intubation Scope and Video Laryngoscopy Combination: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultRisk difference −0.14 95% CI −0.31 to 0.03Authors' conclusion
In adults with anticipated difficult airways, adding VL to FIS did not significantly reduce the composite rate of difficult ETT placement, although it was associated with fewer repeat attempts and fewer provider-rated difficult/unsuccessful intubations.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with anticipated difficult airways undergoing elective surgery128 evaluable
- Participants
- 135 adults
- Comparison
- Flexible intubation scope (FIS)/video laryngoscopy (VL) combination vs FIS alone for intubation
- FIS/VLn = 66
- FISn = 69reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) placement:
- First-attempt intubation time >60 seconds
- Failure to intubate on first attempt
- Provider-rated difficult intubation (Likert 4–5)
Methodological detailsprospective, 1:1 randomisation
- Prospective
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Risk difference
−0.14
95% CI −0.31 to 0.03
P = 0.118
Events by treatment group
FIS/VL vs FIS
Risk difference −0.14 (95% CI −0.31 to 0.03); P = 0.118
Secondary outcomes
First-pass success
P = 0.020
Intubation time >60 seconds
P = 0.145
Provider-rated difficult or unsuccessful intubation
P = 0.025
- First-pass success: 54/58 vs 50/64
- Intubation time >60 seconds: 24/61 vs 33/66
- Provider-rated difficult or unsuccessful intubation: 4/64 vs 13/67
Original publication
Flexible Intubation Scope versus Flexible Intubation Scope and Video Laryngoscopy Combination: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. Published 2 June 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →