Literature DB >> 25265994

Comparison of the C-MAC(®) and GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine disorders and immobilisation.

S Brück1, H Trautner, A Wolff, J Hain, G Mols, P Pakos, N Roewer, M Lange.   

Abstract

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.
© 2014 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25265994     DOI: 10.1111/anae.12858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  8 in total

1.  A comparison of McGrath MAC® and standard direct laryngoscopy in simulated immobilized cervical spine pediatric intubation: a manikin study.

Authors:  Marcin Madziala; Jacek Smereka; Marek Dabrowski; Steve Leung; Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Fu-Shan Xue; Hui-Xian Li; Ya-Yang Liu; Gui-Zhen Yang
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 2.423

3.  Comparison of the ETView Single Lumen and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation in an airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by novice paramedics: A randomized crossover manikin trial.

Authors:  Pawel Gawlowski; Jacek Smereka; Marcin Madziala; Barak Cohen; Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  A comparison of videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in predicted difficult airway: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Maria Vargas; Antonio Pastore; Fulvio Aloj; John G Laffey; Giuseppe Servillo
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Dinesh Kumar; Satinder Gombar; Vanita Ahuja; Arvind Malhotra; Shruti Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2019-07

Review 6.  Video screen visualization patterns when using a video laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review.

Authors:  Preston Dean; Benjamin Kerrey
Journal:  J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open       Date:  2022-01-06

7.  Comparison of Videolaryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway for Tracheal Intubation with Manual-in-line Stabilization in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Reena Jakhar; Deepti Saigal; Suniti Kale; Shipra Aggarwal
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2020-11-26

Review 8.  Comparisons of Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Juncheol Lee; Youngsuk Cho; Wonhee Kim; Kyu-Sun Choi; Bo-Hyoung Jang; Hyungoo Shin; Chiwon Ahn; Jae Guk Kim; Min Kyun Na; Tae Ho Lim; Dong Won Kim
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.