Search strategy for Medline.

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare videolaryngoscope (VL)-assisted transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe insertion with conventional methods in terms of efficacy and safety.MethodsSeveral major databases such as Medline and Embase were systematically searched to identified relevant studies from inception to June 2024. The primary outcome was complication rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing complications related to TEE probe insertion. Injuries at specific sites (e.g., posterior hypopharyngeal wall) from both groups were also analyzed. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate and total insertion time of VL and conventional methods.ResultsSeven trials involving 716 participants were identified. The use of VL was found to significantly reduce the complication rate (risk ratio[RR]:0.28, 95% confidence interval[CI]:0.17–0.46, P P = 0.003) compared with conventional methods. These findings were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. No significant difference was found in the TEE insertion time among the two techniques (mean difference: −2.94s, 95%CI: −10.28–4.4, P = 0.43). VL significantly reduced the risk of trauma to the hypopharyngeal wall but showed no significant benefits in other areas (e.g., pyriform sinus). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the complication rate, very low for the FAS rate, and low for the TEE insertion time.ConclusionThe use of VL for TEE probe insertion is associated with a significantly lower complication rate and higher FAS rate than conventional methods. These findings suggest that VL enhances patient safety and improves the efficiency of TEE probe insertion.