Original Contribution Comparing the novel GlideScope Groove videolaryngoscope with conventional videolaryngoscopy: a randomized mannequin study of novice providers ☆,☆☆ Alan Tung (Student) a , Donald E.G. Griesdale MD, MPH (Assistant Professor) b,c,d, ⁎ a Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9 b Department of Anesthesia, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9 c Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1M9 d Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada V5Z 1M9 Received 13 February 2013; revised 12 July 2013; accepted 25 July 2013 Keywords: Airway management devices; Education; Intubation; Mannequin; Videolaryngoscopy Abstract Study Objective: To compare the GlideScope Groove (GG) with conventional GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) on intubation times, intubation attempts, and glottic visualization of an airway mannequin by medical students. Design: Randomized crossover trial. Setting: Intensive care unit of an academic tertiary-care hospital. Participants: 34 medical students with no airway management experience. Measurements: Each participant received standardized video instruction on all three laryngoscopes and was given 10 minutes to practice with each device. The participants had two attempts using DL, and then had two attempts each with either the GG or GVL in random order. Measurements: Time-to-intubate the mannequin in seconds was recorded. Secondary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane grade and number of intubation attempts, also recorded. Main Results: The median number of seconds required to successfully intubate the mannequin with DL, GVL, and GG were 17.4 seconds [interquartile range (IQR) 13.2 - 22.1)], 17.7 seconds (IQR 14.9 - 21.0), and 21.7 seconds (IQR 15.4 - 37.0), respectively. No differences in time-to-intubate was noted among the three devices (P = 0.45). A Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view was obtained for 25 of 34 participants (74%) with DL, 32 of 34 participants (94%) with GVL, and 34 of 34 participants (100%) with GG. First-attempt intubation success was 30 of 34 participants (88%) with DL, 34 of 34 ☆ Financial support and sponsorship: The authors wish to thank Dr. Jack Pacey and Verathon Medical (Canada) ULC, Burnaby, BC, Canada, who provided the laryngoscopes for the study. Neither Dr. Pacey nor Verathon was involved in the design, conduct of the study, interpretation of the data, or preparation of the manuscript. Dr. Griesdale is supported through a Clinician Scientist Award from the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute and through the Vancouver Hospital Department of Anesthesia. ☆☆ Conflicts of interest: none declared. ⁎ Correspondence: Dr. Donald E. G. Griesdale, Assistant Professor, Critical Care Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, Room 2438, Jim Pattison Pavilion, 2nd Floor, 855 West 12th Ave., Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. Tel.: +1 604 875 5949; fax: +1 604 875 5957. E-mail address: donald.griesdale@vch.ca (D.E.G. Griesdale). 0952-8180/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.07.005 Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (2013) 25, 644–650