We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Comparison of the C-MAC(®) and GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine disorders and immobilisation.
Anaesthesia 2015 Februrary
In-line stabilisation of the neck can increase the difficulty of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy. We randomly assigned 56 patients with cervical spine pathology scheduled for elective surgery to tracheal intubation using either the C-MAC(®) (n = 26) or GlideScope(®) (n = 30), when the head and neck were stabilised in-line. There was no significant difference in the median (IQR [range]) intubation times between the C-MAC (19 (14-35 [9-90]) s and the GlideScope (23, (15-32 [8-65]) s. The first-attempt failure rate for the C-MAC was 42% (95% CI 23-63%) compared with 7% (95% CI 1-22%) for the GlideScope, p = 0.002. The laryngeal view was excellent and comparable with both devices, with the C-MAC requiring significantly more attempts and optimising manoeuvers (11 vs 5, respectively, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in postoperative complaints e.g. sore throat, hoarseness and dysphagia. Both devices provided an excellent glottic view in patients with cervical spine immobilisation, but tracheal intubation was more often successful on the first attempt with the GlideScope.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app