I feel like I might not understand—are people using the pumps to deliver an induction dose rather than just a few different syringes?

Impressive hold

Trying to get to WAMM in November—maybe then?

It remains hard to believe this has happened (twice!) but I’m hopeful when seeing how much the tide feels to be turning against him again: www.economist.com/interactive/...

I’m mostly trying to point out here—just off the top of my head there’s at least a few really good reasons to keep a VL MAC blade as an option

Mind you, I acknowledge that a HAVL can in general achieve the best view in the largest portion of patients, but have always been taught that is different from getting an ETT in place, easily. Particularly with things like a DLT, you’re gonna have a harder time with an HAVL

Really? I guess depends on what style you’re using, and I’ll admit a couple of them might be easier, but in general most tubes in most patients are most easily placed with less bends.

Exactly

Alright—we have different experiences. Good luck trying to get one of those metal laser tubes in with a hyperangulated blade

Indeed, funny bends, funny material, funny sizes, funny internal diameters not permitting a rigid hyperangulated stylet.

Double lumen, laser, nasal, neuromonitoring, etc

I will say—any time I’m putting in a specialized tube I prefer a Mac blade. My experience is that it makes the delivery of tube easier—probably worth looking to see whether the data shows that to be true

Hold up—an awake intubation via an SGA? I’m curious how that would work—and what the indication for the awake intubation would be. Or is that simply to get practice with a fiberoptic through a conduit in an already anesthetized patient?

Would say only if you have another solid indication. Also, most low volume situations better solved with other types of cannulas

Before doing say a TEE or TTE?

The glidescope go at this point.

A solution without a problem that also makes a lot more problems in my experience