Introduction:
Video laryngeal mask airways (VLMAs) represent a development in supraglottic airway devices. They combine traditional laryngeal masks with integrated visualisation to permit real-time guidance of placement and intubation. Although they are increasingly used for airway management, they are relatively novel devices. This review aims to map and summarise evidence on the clinical use of VLMAs.

Methods:
A scoping review in accordance with PRISMA-ScR and established scoping review methodology was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 31 August 2025, supplemented by a grey literature search. English-language studies using VLMAs for ventilation or as an intubation conduit were included. Manikin, cadaveric, single-case and engineering reports were excluded. Data were charted and synthesised descriptively.

Results:
Forty-seven studies were included, comprising twenty-three randomised trials and twenty-four observational studies evaluating five devices: LMA CTrach, SaCoVLM, TotalTrack, SafeLM and Vision Mask. Most studies were single-centre and involved adult ASA I–II patients undergoing elective surgery. VLMAs were frequently compared with supraglottic devices, videolaryngoscopes or direct laryngoscopy. First-pass VLMA insertion success was approximately 85–100%, with success rates ≥90% after optimisation and oropharyngeal leak pressures of 20–35 cmH₂O. Intubation via VLMA achieved first-pass success largely between 85 and 100%, with overall success often ≥95 % and intubation times typically in the range of 25–176 s. Compared with other devices, glottic visualisation was often superior and reported complications (sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia and blood staining) were less frequent with VLMAs.

Conclusion:
Growing evidence indicates that VLMAs provide effective ventilation, high intubation success and favourable visualisation, with safety and haemodynamic outcomes similar to comparator devices. However, the literature is heterogeneous and dominated by CTrach studies in low-risk elective adults, highlighting the need for standardised outcome reporting and robust comparative trials in more varied populations and settings.