Video laryngoscope

[stonemd]

Anyone familiar with the relative merits of the reusables glidescope, glidescope baton with disposable plastic covers and the Storz video laryngoscope? Trying to decide on a new purchase.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cincincyreds]

Anyone familiar with the relative merits of the reusables glidescope, glidescope baton with disposable plastic covers and the Storz video laryngoscope? Trying to decide on a new purchase.

I've used both devices and at my place we have the glidescope. What I like about the glidescope is the preformed stylet so the tube goes thru every time. Our glide scopes are the ones that get cleaned, but I've also used the ones with the plastic covers that cost 7 bucks per and really can't tell a difference.

I prefered glidescope over storz because of the preformed stylet. The glidescope is just easier to use.

 

[psychbender]

Anyone familiar with the relative merits of the reusables glidescope, glidescope baton with disposable plastic covers and the Storz video laryngoscope? Trying to decide on a new purchase.

I have used all three, and they each have their place. The Glidescope with the disposable plastic covers means that you can use one device on multiple patient populations, simply by changing the cover, at the cost of having to purchase new covers rather than just clean the blade. If you do not snap the cover on tightly, though, it will intefere with the image (easy fix). The Storz C-Mac is really just a regular Mac 3 or 4 blade with a camera and LCD. The video cable, though, can also be connected to your fiberoptic scopes to allow for a larger display, rather than staring down the train tunnel. Also, I found the C-mac useful for DLT<-->SLT exchanges, as you could maintain 'direct' visualization of the airway and exchange catheter during the entire process. I have heard that Glidescope is coming out (has come out?) with a regular Mac blade version, and that Storz has similarly come out with a Glidescope blade, as well, so you can probably just pick one device, and get the best of both worlds.

 

[Endee]

 

[jetproppilot]

Anyone familiar with the relative merits of the reusables glidescope, glidescope baton with disposable plastic covers and the Storz video laryngoscope? Trying to decide on a new purchase.

I love the Glidescope.
Easy to use, short learning curve.

 

[goosegas]

Glidescope is a great device but still one of the most expensive. More and more options becoming available.
Anesthesiology News just published the 2013 editions of "Current Concepts in the Management of the Difficult Airway" and lists most of the currently available VL's beginning on page 8, however pricing info is not available.
Outpatient Surgery Magazine recently had an article on VL (registration required) and pricing info is listed if available.

Airtraq

Berci Kaplan DCI

Bullard Elite

C-Mac

CoPilot VL

Glidescope: various models

King Vision

McGrath: 2 models

Pentax AWS

Truview PCD

Venner AP

 

[Planktonmd]

The Glidescope has a heating element at the lens that makes fogging less likely, it has an ergonomic less bulky handle and it has the rigid stylet, these features make the Glidescope superior to all the others.
Both the reusable and the disposable glidescopes are good.
The main disadvantage of the glidescope is price.
The Storz scope has better optics than the Glidescope but it is heated passively so it fogs more frequently especially on breathing patients.
If you combine the rigid stylet from the glidescope with any any videoscope you will improve the results dramatically, because without the stylet you will have the frustrating experience of seeing the cords but not being able to maneuver the curve in a true anterior airway.

 

[G0S2]

I bought a King video laryngoscope.

http://www.kingsystems.com/medical-devices-supplies-products/airway-management/video-laryngoscopes/

 

[univofyoutube]

Sorry this isn't much help but I need to correct some misinformation...

-CMAC and GlideScope reusable are priced similarly.
-Both systems are designed to reduce fogging.
-Both systems have CMOS video chips so image resolution is similar

 

[periopdoc]

Just about every company that makes these will let you demo their product to see how you like it. Give em a call.

- pod

 

[goosegas]

The Glidescope has a heating element at the lens that makes fogging less likely, it has an ergonomic less bulky handle and it has the rigid stylet, these features make the Glidescope superior to all the others.
The main disadvantage of the glidescope is price.

If these features are what are important to you, then I think the CoPilot VL would also meet your needs at a lower price point.

The King Vision and the McGrath Mac don't have heating elements to reduce fogging but they do have anti fog coatings on the disposables that I understand do work pretty well.

 

[Mman]

for my money the Glidescope trumps all. It's lightweight, but heavy duty, and gives you a great view. Rigid stylet comes in handy and you can bend it a bit if you need to aim even more anteriorly.


But as mentioned, contact companies and have their reps bring whatever by to play with and try for yourself.

 

[periopdoc]

I have personally never had a fogging issue with the new McGrath Mac although I understand the concern. I have used it extensively in evaluation on everything from limited mouth opening to neck immobility, to postoperative anatomical disfigurement. So far I have found no reason to hold it in lower esteem than the GlideScope.

There are a ton of cheap. semi-rigid stylets on the market that can be bent into the same shape as the Glidescope stylet. The angle on that thing is right and I bend all my stylets to replicate it whether I am doing video or traditional laryngoscopy.

Despite my theoretical love for the new McGrath Mac (cheaper, effective, more portable, etc), and my staunch defense of it on this board, I have to be honest with you guys... when there is a tough airway coming into my OR, I still grab the Glidescope even though our McGrath Macs live in the same cabinet.

- pod

 

[Jay K]

If you have a high-use venue with multiple OR's (ie: hospital setting), then disposable glidescope - quick wipedown and ready for use immediately somewhere else.

If you have a low-use venue (ie: small surgery center) then reuseable glidescope is more cost-effective.

Bearing in mind the reusable units are more susceptible to damage in my opinion than the video portion being ensheathed in a rigid disposable blade.

 

[univofyoutube]

If you have a high-use venue with multiple OR's (ie: hospital setting), then disposable glidescope - quick wipedown and ready for use immediately somewhere else.

If you have a low-use venue (ie: small surgery center) then reuseable glidescope is more cost-effective.

Bearing in mind the reusable units are more susceptible to damage in my opinion than the video portion being ensheathed in a rigid disposable blade.

The cost of disposable blades can add up quickly in a high volume OR. Estimate (I'm estimating low here) 10 cases with the video laryngoscope per day(mon-fri) at $12/blade=$31,200/year on blades.

In 2 years you will spend $62,400 ON BLADES....3 years=$93,600 ON BLADES....4 years=$124,800 ON BLADESSS

For $124,800 you could have bought 31 reusable blades (estimating $4,000/ reusable blade). You don't need 31 blades of course because you only use it for 10 cases per day so maybe you could buy another item on the wish list.

OR MAYBE you could buy....
1 CMAC ($7k) with 10 reusable blades ($40k) and a pocket monitor ($5k)
1 GlideScope ($7k) with 10 reusable blades ($40k)
1 Optical stylet ($7k)
1 fiberoptic ($10k)
-------------
$111,000 total (boom AND you still have over $13k left to spend).

 

[susruta]

Big thing you are forgetting is the price of cleaning the reusable glidscopes.
In our hospital with high turnover of cases, we found out that reusable onces turnout to be cheaper.
I am also sure the department might have got a good deal on those blades in bulk purchase. Like if you use 30,0000 blades u will get it much lower than 12 bucks

The cost of disposable blades can add up quickly in a high volume OR. Estimate (I'm estimating low here) 10 cases with the video laryngoscope per day(mon-fri) at $12/blade=$31,200/year on blades.

In 2 years you will spend $62,400 ON BLADES....3 years=$93,600 ON BLADES....4 years=$124,800 ON BLADESSS

For $124,800 you could have bought 31 reusable blades (estimating $4,000/ reusable blade). You don't need 31 blades of course because you only use it for 10 cases per day so maybe you could buy another item on the wish list.

OR MAYBE you could buy....
1 CMAC ($7k) with 10 reusable blades ($40k) and a pocket monitor ($5k)
1 GlideScope ($7k) with 10 reusable blades ($40k)
1 Optical stylet ($7k)
1 fiberoptic ($10k)
-------------
$111,000 total (boom AND you still have over $13k left to spend).

 

[univofyoutube]

I think $14 per blade is more realistic. I estimated low because I'm sure someone out there could negotiate that kind of a deal.