Literature DB >> 19512871

Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison of the AirTraq Laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Timothy P Turkstra1, David M Pelz, Philip M Jones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal technique to intubate the trachea in patients presenting with a potential or documented cervical spine (C-spine) injury remains unresolved. Using continuous fluoroscopic video assessment, C-spine motion during laryngoscopy with an AirTraq Laryngoscope (King Medical Systems, Newark, DE) was compared to that with intubation using a Macintosh blade.
METHODS: Twenty-four healthy surgical patients gave written consent to participate in a crossover randomized controlled trial; all patients were subjected to both Macintosh and AirTraq laryngoscopy with manual inline stabilization after induction of anesthesia. The C-spine motion was examined at four areas: the occiput-C1 junction, C1-C2 junction, C2-C5 motion segment, and C5-thoracic motion segment. The time required for laryngoscopy was also measured.
RESULTS: C-spine motion using the AirTraq was less than that during Macintosh laryngoscopy, averaging 66% less (P < 0.01) at three of the motion segments studied, occiput-C1, C2-C5, and C5-thoracic. There was no difference at the C1-C2 segment. There was no significant difference in the time to accomplish laryngoscopy between the two devices.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients in whom C-spine movement is undesirable, use of the AirTraq Laryngoscope may be useful to limit movement without an increase in the duration of intubation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19512871     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a8649f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  33 in total

1.  Comparison of cervical spine motion during intubation with a C‑MAC D‑Blade® and an LMA Fastrach®.

Authors:  D Özkan; S Altınsoy; M Sayın; H Dolgun; J Ergil; A Dönmez
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  [Indirect laryngoscopy : Alternatives to securing the airway].

Authors:  R R Noppens; C Werner; T Piepho
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients.

Authors:  Maria Michailidou; Terence O'Keeffe; Jarrod M Mosier; Randall S Friese; Bellal Joseph; Peter Rhee; John C Sakles
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  A Comparison of the Effects of Different Types of Laryngoscope on the Cervical Motions: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Alkin Çolak; Elif Çopuroğlu; Ali Yılmaz; Sevtap Hekimoğlu Şahin; Nesrin Turan
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 2.021

5.  Comparison of Airtraq optical laryngoscope and Storz video laryngoscope in a cadaver model.

Authors:  Michael C Wadman; Travis W Dierks; Chad E Branecki; Claudia L Barthold; Lance H Hoffman; Lina Lander; Carol S Lomneth; Richard A Walker
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2011

6.  The pressure exerted on the tongue during intubation with simultaneous cervical spine immobilisation: a comparison between four videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope-a manikin study.

Authors:  Dawid Aleksandrowicz; Tomasz Gaszyński
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Intubation Biomechanics: Laryngoscope Force and Cervical Spine Motion during Intubation in Cadavers-Cadavers versus Patients, the Effect of Repeated Intubations, and the Effect of Type II Odontoid Fracture on C1-C2 Motion.

Authors:  Bradley J Hindman; Robert P From; Ricardo B Fontes; Vincent C Traynelis; Michael M Todd; M Bridget Zimmerman; Christian M Puttlitz; Brandon G Santoni
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 7.892

8.  Advances in laryngoscopy: rigid indirect laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Deanne R Cheyne; Patrick Doyle
Journal:  F1000 Med Rep       Date:  2010-08-19

9.  A comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in cadaver models of global ligamentous instability at c1-2.

Authors:  Adam L Wendling; Patrick J Tighe; Bryan P Conrad; Tezcan Ozrazgat Baslanti; Marybeth Horodyski; Glenn R Rechtine
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 5.108

10.  Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade, Conventional C-MAC, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Simulated Easy and Difficult Airways.

Authors:  Alper Kılıçaslan; Ahmet Topal; Atilla Erol; Sema Tuncer Uzun
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2014-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.