McGrath MAC vs Series 5

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I

InductionAgent

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
468
Reaction score
7
I am considering buying a McGrath (or other highly portable video laryngoscope) to keep with me to use on difficult airways. I will be working at multiple hospitals, some of which might not have a Glidescope available. I wanted to see if anyone had used both the McGrath MAC and the Series 5 and had opinions on how they compare. In addition, how does either compare to the Glidescope?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Would not most hospitals' anesthesia departments already have difficult intubation equipment on-hand?

As it shall be a pricey purchase, keep the receipt and deduct it on your taxes as an unreimbursed employee expense (or as a business expense if you are 1099).
 
I've had trouble using the McGrath scope. I just like the glidescope with the pre-formed stylette so much better.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Not all hospitals have video laryngoscopes. Most have fiberoptic bronchoscopes for difficult airways. We begged our hospital to get a Glidescope but they got us a McGrath Series 5. The electrical connections are horrible and constantly get mucked up, resulting in a flickering image just when you don't want it. There is no battery meter, so when the battteries run out you get a big surprise. When the moon and stars align and it works perfectly, the airway view is great. But it doesn't have a preformed stylette, so you have to figure out what stylet curve works best for you, and it takes several attempts to get the hang of it. I've tried the Glidescope one time, and I definitely like it better, but it is more expensive of course. I just looked up the McGrath MAC, and it looks like they eliminated the sliding mechanism from the Series 5, so now the contacts aren't exposed to dirt and go, and I bet the image stability is a lot better. I would lobby the hospital to get something for the department.
 
I've used the McGrath, the Pentax, and the Glidescope (both the re-usable and disposable handles), and I've found the Glide with the re-usable handle is superior to the others by a noticeable margin. I do not own stock in the company, I just really find it easier to use.
 
I wil have to agree with everybody. We tried the glidescope and the mcgrath. I think the glidescope is a much better product and worth the extra money. We have had two glidescopes at our place for a while, they rarely have many problems even with very regular use.
 
http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/5/705.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16829671


CONCLUSION:

Compared to direct laryngoscopy, Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy is associated with improved glottic visualization, particularly in patients with potential or simulated difficult airways



A Glidescope isn't a substitute for skill with a Miller 2/3 blade but it is a useful, valuable tool for Anesthesiologists.
I have found it very useful in cervical injury and unexpected difficult airway patients. In particular the glidescope can be used alone or as an additional device with oral fiberoptic intubation.

Since I acquired a glidescope several years ago the need for fiberoptic intubation in my practice has decreased by 2/3.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't disagreeing with you Blade, mostly just contradicting dhb. That is, if I DIDN'T have access to a glidescope (which I do) I'd rather have access to Miller blades than Macs especially in more difficult airway situations.

The glidescope is an awesome tool and utilized all over Atlanta. I guess I didn't realize that it's not a nationwide thing. As a student I worked with an attending who had one of these,

http://www.verathon.com/Products/GlideScope/Ranger.aspx

he just used it on everyone and cleaned it between cases, pretty fun toy. I guess it's mostly used out in the field, as the regular glide is too bulky for those situations.
 
btbam said:
I wasn't disagreeing with you Blade, mostly just contradicting dhb. That is, if I DIDN'T have access to a glidescope (which I do) I'd rather have access to Miller blades than Macs especially in more difficult airway situations.

The glidescope is an awesome tool and utilized all over Atlanta. I guess I didn't realize that it's not a nationwide thing. As a student I worked with an attending who had one of these,

http://www.verathon.com/Products/GlideScope/Ranger.aspx

he just used it on everyone and cleaned it between cases, pretty fun toy. I guess it's mostly used out in the field, as the regular glide is too bulky for those situations.
Click to expand...

I rarely use MAC blades; I haven't used them much since 1998. 93% of my intubations (adult) are Miller 2 and about 6% are Miller 3. The other 1 percent are MAC blades when the CRNA has one set-up already.
 
dhb said:
Get a good Mac3&4 blade and a bougie, i've never felt the need for a video laryngoscope...
Click to expand...
??

I don't need a video assisted scope everyday but it is a glorious invention. From my personal experience, I love the Glidescope and hate the McGrath. The above post about the dying battery and flickering picture is SO true. The preformed stylette with the Glidescope is a nice asset that the McGrath lacks and is just more user friendly, dependable, and useful in general. That's just my opinion so no backlash please from you McGrath lovers out there...if you exist
 
I think the device best suiuted for the needs of the OP would be the airtraq.
I know a lot of people love the Glidescope and i think it's a good device especially of combined with a FO.

But the truth is that in my patient population it's just not very useful and i've not seen people use it all that much even when available.
 
BLADEMDA said:
AMBU aSCope 2 (google it)

I'm thinking of buying this as a disposable product. This type of device can be used to intubate through an LMA or with a Glidscope (use the glidescope to open the mouth and expose the oropharynx followed by the Ambu scope if no view of the glottis)


http://www.ambu.com/ascope2-new/home.aspx
Click to expand...

Used the aScope a couple of times in fellowship...LOVED it.

My hospital is going to buy a couple of KingVisions...tried it a couple of times. Nice product, liked it better than the McGrath. But I wish they were buying the Ambu scopes.
 
Thanks for the replies. I had some of the same worries about not having the pre-formed stylet that I prefer with the Glidescope. And it's good to know that the McGrath video display does not seem as reliable as the Glide. When I was in my last year of residency in 2009, per report most private hospitals in this town did not own Glides. Hopefully some of the facilities have progressed with the times, but given the frequent lag between academic discovery and private practice implementation, I am not counting that it will be present at all sites. I agree that if I'd never used a Glide I'd be more adept at using alternate difficult airway strategies, but by contrast some old-school anesthesiologists are not very adept at using the Glide, which is well on its way to becoming standard equipment.
 
Oggg said:
... McGrath Series 5. The electrical connections are horrible and constantly get mucked up, resulting in a flickering image just when you don't want it.
Click to expand...

I had the same problem with McGrath, until recently. You are correct that the flickering image, especially when you are lifting to improve the view, is a big problem and it comes from the dirty sliding connection. Just try to wipe it clean with some alcohol swab. I've tried this on two McGrath, and was 2-for-2. It's no Glide but good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

circleK
McGrath recall
Replies
4
Views
1K
Gern Blansten
Gern Blansten
P
MAC vs GA for ERCP New Guidelines
2
Replies
91
Views
7K
circleK
circleK
GolDRoger
Cardiology vs. Anesthesia
Replies
35
Views
4K
lotsapain
L
C
Any VA docs having to list 5 things they did last week?
Replies
16
Views
1K
emergentmd
E
T
Is an EGD w prop GA or MAC
Replies
40
Views
3K
kidthor
kidthor
Top