ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of intubation between HPHJ-A video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope, and to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.MethodsTotally 100 patients who were to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were randomly allocated for airway management with one of the two devices: HPHJ-A video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope. The following data were observed and recorded for the two groups: the Cormack-Lehane grade of exposing the glottis, hemodynamic alteration before and after endotracheal intubation, intubation time, and intubation attempts.ResultsHPHJ-A video laryngoscope resulted in a better glottis exposure than the Macintosh laryngoscope, and the results of hemodynamic alteration, intubation time, and intubation attempts were similar between the two groups. For patients with a difficult airway (Cormack-Lehane Ⅲ-Ⅳ) , HPHJ-A video laryngoscope resulted in a slighter hemodynamic alteration(P<0.05), a higher successful intubation rate, and a shorter intubation time(P<0.05) compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. ConclusionThe HPHJ-A video laryngoscope can greatly improve the glottic exposure compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, especially for patients with difficult airway.