We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomized cinefluoroscopic comparison of cervical spine motion using McGrath series 5 and Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation with manual in-line stabilization.
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2015 January
BACKGROUND: Intubation in patients with suspected cervical spine injury must be cautiously performed to avoid any further neurologic trauma. Several intubation techniques have been introduced to minimize cervical spine motion such as the use of the videolaryngoscope.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare the movement of the cervical spine during intubation by using McGrath series 5 videolaryngoscope (MGL) and that of the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope from cinefluoroscopic imaging.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Twenty-two patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery that did not involve cervical spine procedure and required general anesthesia were recruited into the study. All patients were randomized either to have intubation with MGL (n = 11) or Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 11) in a neutral position with manual in-line stabilization (MILS). The primary outcome was the cervical vertebral angle changes pre- and post-intubation, measured by cinefluoroscopy. The number of intubation attempts, the laryngoscopic view, the time to intubation, and the incidence ofany complications were recorded as well.
RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in each group without any exclusion from the study. The cervical vertebral angle changes pre- and post-intubation with the MGL was less than with the Macintosh laryngoscope at C3/4 (2.00 vs. 4.27 degrees, respectively; p-value = 0.034) and the cumulative changes of all cervical spine levels (9.18 vs. 17.18 degrees, respectively; p-value = 0.017). However, the time to intubation with the MGL was longer (35.07 vs. 23.21 seconds, p-value = 0.004), the laryngoscope view was better. There were no statistically significant differences in the intubation success rate, the number of attempts, and the incidence of complications.
CONCLUSION: Orotracheal intubation with MGL provided less cervical spine motion and improved visualization of the vocal cords, without causing adverse consequences as compared with Macintosh laryngoscope and MILS.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare the movement of the cervical spine during intubation by using McGrath series 5 videolaryngoscope (MGL) and that of the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope from cinefluoroscopic imaging.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Twenty-two patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery that did not involve cervical spine procedure and required general anesthesia were recruited into the study. All patients were randomized either to have intubation with MGL (n = 11) or Macintosh laryngoscope (n = 11) in a neutral position with manual in-line stabilization (MILS). The primary outcome was the cervical vertebral angle changes pre- and post-intubation, measured by cinefluoroscopy. The number of intubation attempts, the laryngoscopic view, the time to intubation, and the incidence ofany complications were recorded as well.
RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in each group without any exclusion from the study. The cervical vertebral angle changes pre- and post-intubation with the MGL was less than with the Macintosh laryngoscope at C3/4 (2.00 vs. 4.27 degrees, respectively; p-value = 0.034) and the cumulative changes of all cervical spine levels (9.18 vs. 17.18 degrees, respectively; p-value = 0.017). However, the time to intubation with the MGL was longer (35.07 vs. 23.21 seconds, p-value = 0.004), the laryngoscope view was better. There were no statistically significant differences in the intubation success rate, the number of attempts, and the incidence of complications.
CONCLUSION: Orotracheal intubation with MGL provided less cervical spine motion and improved visualization of the vocal cords, without causing adverse consequences as compared with Macintosh laryngoscope and MILS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
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