Benefit-risk assessment
All patients receive the medically necessary peri-operative care. According to current knowledge, randomization into one of the three study arms does not per se entail any altered risk for participants. Both conventional laryngoscopy and VAL are established as standard clinical procedures. The fact that, according to the current state of knowledge, no procedure is superior to the other for elective endotracheal intubation in the context of general anaesthesia is precisely the subject of this study. There is no evidence from the data available in the literature to suggest that VAL may expose the patient to additional risk compared with the conventional procedure.Since both investigated laryngoscopy procedures are used in routine clinical practice, but sufficient robust data to demonstrate the superiority of either procedure have been lacking to date, the investigation of this issue in a randomized-controlled clinical trial with the aim of maximizing patient safety during a potentially life-threatening intervention also appears to be ethically appropriate. No increased risk results for the patient from participation in this clinical study, neither is a direct medical benefit for the patient assumed resulting from participating.