# Comparative Evaluation of Linscope and King Vision Video Laryngoscopes in Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

## TL;DR

This study compares two video laryngoscopes, Linscope and King Vision, and finds both are effective for tracheal intubation with similar success rates and performance.

## Contribution

The study provides the first comparative evaluation of the newly launched Linscope video laryngoscope against the established King Vision device.

## Key findings

- Both devices achieved 100% success rate on the first intubation attempt.
- Linscope had a slightly higher POGO score, but the difference was not statistically significant.
- King Vision had a shorter intubation time and required fewer optimization maneuvers.

## Abstract

Introduction

Indirect laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for learning the techniques of airway management. The incorporation of small, less expensive, and yet more reliable video cameras in laryngoscopes has given the process of laryngoscopy and intubation a big leap. The King Vision video laryngoscope (Medline Industries, USA) has demonstrated promise in several settings while the Linscope video laryngoscope (Centrum, Turkey) is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of the Linscope video laryngoscope (VL) and King Vision video laryngoscope.

Method

This is a randomized controlled trial study. Seventy patients, after approval from the institute's ethical clearance, were divided into two groups. In Group A, patients were intubated with Linscope VL and in Group B patients were intubated with King Vision VL as per the protocol. The primary outcome measure was the duration of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were measured by the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and glottic view.

Results

Both Linscope VL and King Vision VL groups were comparable in terms of mean intubation time (20.34 s vs. 19.45 s). The endotracheal intubation with both devices was 100% successful at the first attempt. Both the devices provided a percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score of > 70% and a clear vision of the glottis. The POGO score obtained with King Vision VL was 83.57 ± 11.41% and with Linscope VL was 87.85 ± 10.31%. POGO score was greater with Linscope VL compared to King Vision VL, but the difference was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05).

Conclusion

King Vision demonstrated shorter intubation time and fewer optimization maneuvers. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate on the first attempt. While both devices are viable first-line options, King Vision's well-established efficacy in the literature suggests its preference over Linscope till extensive evidence is available in the future.