Universal videolaryngoscopy for double-lumen tube tracheal intubation: Subanalysis of the VIDEOLAR-SURGERY trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultAbsolute risk difference 14.6% 95% CI 4.5%–24.8%Authors' conclusion
Universal videolaryngoscopy improved glottic visualization and the rate of easy double lumen tube intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy, while reducing technical difficulty and complications.
Study context
- Population
- Surgical patients requiring double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) intubationof 5135 in parent study
- Participants
- 189 patients
- Comparison
- Videolaryngoscopy vs Direct laryngoscopy
- Videolaryngoscopyn = 94
- Direct laryngoscopyn = 95reference
- Primary endpoint
- Easy intubation (first-attempt success, modified Cormack-Lehane grade I or IIa glottic view, and no need for adjuvant airway devices)
Methodological detailsprospective, multicentre
- Prospective
- Multicentre
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Absolute risk difference
14.6%
95% CI 4.5%–24.8%
By group
Videolaryngoscopy vs Direct laryngoscopy
absolute risk difference 14.6% (95% CI 4.5%–24.8%)
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Videolaryngoscopy | Direct laryngoscopy | Absolute risk difference (98.3% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-attempt success | 94.7% | 82.1% | 12.6% (2.9%–22.3%) | |
| −100102030Difference (linear scale) |
Glottic visualization
- Trend toward improved glottic visualization, interventional (videolaryngoscopy) vs non-interventional (direct laryngoscopy) phase
- 94.7% vs. 87.4%
Perceived technical difficulty
- Trend toward lower perceived technical difficulty in the interventional phase
Safety
- Trend toward fewer complications with videolaryngoscopy
Original publication
Universal videolaryngoscopy for double-lumen tube tracheal intubation: Subanalysis of the VIDEOLAR-SURGERY trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 25 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →