Literature DB >> 21629162

Comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in a cadaver model with global ligamentous instability at C5-C6.

Mark L Prasarn1, Bryan Conrad, Paul T Rubery, Adam Wendling, Tolga Aydog, MaryBeth Horodyski, Glenn R Rechtine.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Human cadaveric study using various intubation devices in a cervical spine instability model.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate various intubation techniques and determine which device results in the least cervical motion in the setting of a global ligamentous instability model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many patients presenting with a cervical spine injury have other injuries that may require rapid airway management with endotracheal intubation. Secondary neurologic injuries may occur in these patients because of further displacement at the level of injury, vascular insult, or systemic decrease in oxygen delivery. The most appropriate technique for achieving endotracheal intubation in the patient with a cervical spine injury remains controversial.
METHODS: A global ligamentous instability at the C5-C6 vertebral level was created in lightly embalmed cadavers. An electromagnetic motion analysis device (Liberty; Polhemus, Colchester, VT) was used to assess the amount of angular and linear translation in 3 planes during intubation trials with each of 4 devices (Airtraq laryngoscope, lighted stylet, intubating LMA, and Macintosh laryngoscope). The angular motions measured were flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. Linear translation was measured in the medial-lateral (ML), axial, and anteroposterior planes. Intubation was performed by either an emergency medical technician or by a board-certified attending anesthesiologist. Both time to intubate as well as failure to intubate (after 3 attempts) were recorded.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference shown with regards to time to successfully intubate using the various devices. It was shown that the highest failure-to-intubate rate occurred with use of the intubating LMA (ILMA) (23%) versus 0% for the others. In flexion/extension, we were able to demonstrate that the Lightwand (P = 0.005) and Airtraq (P = 0.019) resulted in significantly less angular motion than the Macintosh blade. In anterior/posterior translation, the Lightwand (P = 0.005), Airtraq (P = 0.024), and ILMA (P = 0.021) all caused significantly less linear motion than the Macintosh blade. In axial rotation, the Lightwand (P = 0.017) and Airtraq (P = 0.022) resulted in significantly less angular motion than the Macintosh blade. In axial translation (P = 0.037) and lateral bending (P = 0.003), the Lightwand caused significantly less motion than the Macintosh blade.
CONCLUSION: In a cadaver model of C5-C6 instability, the greatest amount of motion was caused by the most commonly used intubation device, the Macintosh blade. Intubation with the Lightwand resulted in significantly less motion in all tested parameters (other than ML translation) as compared with the Macintosh blade. It should also be noted that the Airtraq caused less motion than the Macintoshblade in 3 of the 6 tested planes. There were no significant differences in failure rate or the amount of time it took to successfully intubate in comparing these techniques. We therefore recommend the use of the Lightwand, followed by the Airtraq, in the setting of a presumed unstable cervical spine injury over the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21629162     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822419fe

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  10 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.  [Anesthesiological considerations for patients with trisomy 21 (Down syndrome)].

Authors:  K Ihringer; N Russ; A Walther; J-H Schiff
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Intubation biomechanics: laryngoscope force and cervical spine motion during intubation with Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes.

Authors:  Bradley J Hindman; Brandon G Santoni; Christian M Puttlitz; Robert P From; Michael M Todd
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Laryngoscope and a new tracheal tube assist lightwand intubation in difficult airways due to unstable cervical spine.

Authors:  Cai-neng Wu; Wu-hua Ma; Jian-qi Wei; Hua-feng Wei; Qing-yun Cen; Qing-xiang Cai; Ying Cao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  L Suppan; M R Tramèr; M Niquille; O Grosgurin; C Marti
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Effect of rigid cervical collar on tracheal intubation using Airtraq(®).

Authors:  Padmaja Durga; Chiranjeevi Yendrapati; Geeta Kaniti; Narmada Padhy; Kiran Kumar Anne; Gopinath Ramachandran
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2014-07

9.  Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine: Three Spine-Board Transfer Techniques.

Authors:  Mark L Prasarn; MaryBeth Horodyski; Matthew J DiPaola; Christian P DiPaola; Gianluca Del Rossi; Bryan P Conrad; Glenn R Rechtine
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2015-09-08

10.  Randomized crossover trial comparing cervical spine motion during tracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope versus a C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope in a simulated immobilized cervical spine.

Authors:  Hyesun Paik; Hee-Pyoung Park
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-08-15       Impact factor: 2.217

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.