Just a couple of comments from someone who's been intubating for 32 years. If you have a laryngscope in a "combative" patient, something has gone wrong. Also, if you're close enough to the scope to be in danger of losing an eye, you're too close. Seriously, during conventional laryngoscopy, you can improve your depth perception by using both eyes, which implies backing off. I know when I intubate little babies (say 30 week or so), I'm kind of stressed, as it's not my usual patient. The more anxious I am, the closer to the scope I find myself holding my eye. If I remember to back off a bit, I seem to have an easier time of it.

Which brings up another point: using any of these monocular indirect vision devices (Bullard, Shikani, Fiberoptic, McGrath, Pentax, etc, etc,) one loses, by definition, the depth perception that comes from binocular or stereoscopic vision -- not a major problem, but a compensation one must make, consciously or unconsciously, when using such a device.

The appeal is the portability and avoiding sending an instrument to be sterilized after every use. The portion in contact with the patient is disposable. Head to head with the Bullard, I have no favorite; however, I do use it.