A Tale of Two Scopes: Comparative Evaluation of Tuoren® and King Vision® Videolaryngoscopes in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Laryngoscopy remains a cornerstone of airway management in anesthesiology. With advancements in technology, videolaryngoscopes have improved visualization and intubation success rates. Among these, the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope (Tuoren Medical Group, Henan, China) and the King Vision® videolaryngoscope (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) have been widely used, although direct clinical comparisons between the two devices remain limited. This research sought to assess and compare ease of intubation, glottic visualization, time efficiency, and success rates between the Tuoren® and King Vision® videolaryngoscopes. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted on 98 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III undergoing elective surgeries requiring general anesthesia. The participants were allocated into two groups of 49 each: Group I was intubated using the Tuoren® device and Group II using the King Vision® device, after standard induction and neuromuscular blockade. The recorded parameters were intubation time, number of attempts, ease of intubation score, glottic visualization (modified Cormack-Lehane and Percentage of Glottic Opening (POGO) scores), and hemodynamic responses. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: Patient demographics and baseline airway assessments were comparable between the groups. The mean intubation time was significantly shorter with the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope compared to the King Vision® videolaryngoscope (64.6 ± 28.8 s vs. 79.6 ± 13.2 s, p < 0.001). The Tuoren® group demonstrated a higher median ease of intubation score (3 (IQR 3-4) vs. 3 (IQR 3-3), p = 0.0011). Although King Vision® provided superior glottic views (p = 0.002), this did not translate to easier or faster intubation. Hemodynamic parameters and complication rates were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both Tuoren® and King Vision® videolaryngoscopes are effective for tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. While the King Vision® videolaryngoscope offers a marginally better glottic view, the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope provides faster and easier intubation, suggesting its potential as a reliable and cost-effective alternative in clinical practice. Further large-scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings across varied clinical scenarios.