We have located links that may give you full text access.
A comparison of endotracheal intubation characteristics between Macintosh, CMAC and Smart Trach laryngoscopes; A randomized prospective clinical trial.
Expert Review of Medical Devices 2022 October 15
BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared the performance characteristics of Macintosh laryngoscope, CMAC videolaryngoscope with a recently developed videolaryngoscope called Smart Trach.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: : Three hundred seventy-five patients belonging to mixed population without having anticipated difficult airways undergoing elective surgeries were randomly allocated to be intubated using either of the three laryngoscopes (Macintosh, CMAC or Smart Trach). Time needed for successful intubation, number of attempts, Cormack Lehane's (CL) grading, optimisation maneuverers, intubation difficulty score (IDS), subjective ease of intubation (VAS), subjective lifting force and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: : Demographic and anthropometric measurements (sex, height, weight and body mass index) among the groups were comparable. CL grades, lifting force, IDS, VAS and intubation times (seconds) were significantly different whereas need for maneuver, attempts and complications were similar. (p>0.05 each). Intubation times (seconds) were significantly different between Macintosh [36(29-43) seconds] CMAC [30(24-37)] and Smart Trach [35(30-42] groups. (p<0.001). Subjective ease of intubation based on VAS score was lowest in Smart trach group [1(1-2)] (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Shortest intubation times were achieved with CMAC with least use of lifting force. First attempt success rates of were similar. Intubation was easiest subjectively using Smart Trach as manifested by lowest VAS and IDS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial registry of India (CTRI/2019/09/021279 dated 17/09/2019).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: : Three hundred seventy-five patients belonging to mixed population without having anticipated difficult airways undergoing elective surgeries were randomly allocated to be intubated using either of the three laryngoscopes (Macintosh, CMAC or Smart Trach). Time needed for successful intubation, number of attempts, Cormack Lehane's (CL) grading, optimisation maneuverers, intubation difficulty score (IDS), subjective ease of intubation (VAS), subjective lifting force and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: : Demographic and anthropometric measurements (sex, height, weight and body mass index) among the groups were comparable. CL grades, lifting force, IDS, VAS and intubation times (seconds) were significantly different whereas need for maneuver, attempts and complications were similar. (p>0.05 each). Intubation times (seconds) were significantly different between Macintosh [36(29-43) seconds] CMAC [30(24-37)] and Smart Trach [35(30-42] groups. (p<0.001). Subjective ease of intubation based on VAS score was lowest in Smart trach group [1(1-2)] (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Shortest intubation times were achieved with CMAC with least use of lifting force. First attempt success rates of were similar. Intubation was easiest subjectively using Smart Trach as manifested by lowest VAS and IDS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial registry of India (CTRI/2019/09/021279 dated 17/09/2019).
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The New Challenge of Obesity - Obesity-Associated Nephropathy.Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity 2024
Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in Therapy 2024 May 15
Oral Anticoagulation Use in Individuals With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Review.Seminars in Nephrology 2024 May 15
Nutrition in the intensive care unit: from the acute phase to beyond.Intensive Care Medicine 2024 May 22
Drug Therapy for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction with Hypertension: A State-of-the-Art Review.American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs : Drugs, Devices, and Other Interventions 2024 April 5
Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2024 May 22
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