Objective?To compare the clinical efficacy of double-lumen tube intubation between McGrath-5 video-laryngoscope and McCoy laryngoscope in patients with difficult airway. Methods Sixty patients who were predicted as difficult double-lumen tube intubation were divided into two groups using random number table method: McGrath-5 video-laryngoscope group (group A, n = 30) and McCoy laryngoscope group (group B, n = 30). All patients were intubated by two laryngoscopes correspondingly after conventional induction. The success rate of the first intubation, intubation time, the ratio of right positioning, the number of SpO2 < 90% within intubation time, the number of pressing the cricoid, the incidence of intubation complications and hemodynamic parameters [The changes in systolic pressure and heart rate and BIS were recorded before induction (T0), glottic exposure upon laryngoscope insertion (T1), immediately after intubation (T2), 3 min (T3) after intubation]. Results The number of pressing the cricoid was smaller in group A than in group B (P < 0.05), whereas the intubation time in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (P < 0.05). The systolic pressure and heart rate at T3 were dramatically reduced compared with those measured at T0 in both groups (P < 0.05). The systolic pressure and heart rate at T1 and T2 in group A were considerably lower in group A than those in group B (P < 0.05). Conclusions Compared with the McCoy laryngoscope, double-lumen tube intubation by McGrath-5 video-laryngoscope can less impact on hemodynamics, less intubation complications, intubation time although prolonged but not for influence the patient's oxygen supply, for difficult airway double-lumen tube intubation provides a good choice.