Bradley J Hindman1, Robert P From, Ricardo B Fontes, Vincent C Traynelis, Michael M Todd, M Bridget Zimmerman, Christian M Puttlitz, Brandon G Santoni. 1. From the Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa (B.J.H., R.P.F., M.M.T.); Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois (R.B.F., V.C.T.); Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (M.B.Z.); Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (C.M.P.); and Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Tampa, Florida (B.G.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to characterize (1) the cadaver intubation biomechanics, including the effect of repeated intubations, and (2) the relation between intubation force and the motion of an injured cervical segment. METHODS: Fourteen cadavers were serially intubated using force-sensing Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes in random order, with simultaneous cervical spine motion recorded with lateral fluoroscopy. Motion of the C1-C2 segment was measured in the intact and injured state (type II odontoid fracture). Injured C1-C2 motion was proportionately corrected for changes in intubation forces that occurred with repeated intubations. RESULTS: Cadaver intubation biomechanics were comparable with those of patients in all parameters other than C2-C5 extension. In cadavers, intubation force (set 2/set 1 force ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81; P = 0.002) and Oc-C5 extension (set 2 - set 1 difference = -6.1 degrees; 95% CI, -11.4 to -0.9; P = 0.025) decreased with repeated intubations. In cadavers, C1-C2 extension did not differ (1) between intact and injured states; or (2) in the injured state, between laryngoscopes (with and without force correction). With force correction, in the injured state, C1-C2 subluxation was greater with the Airtraq (mean difference 2.8 mm; 95% CI, 0.7 to 4.9 mm; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: With limitations, cadavers may be clinically relevant models of intubation biomechanics and cervical spine motion. In the setting of a type II odontoid fracture, C1-C2 motion during intubation with either the Macintosh or the Airtraq does not appear to greatly exceed physiologic values or to have a high likelihood of hyperextension or direct cord compression.
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to characterize (1) the cadaver intubation biomechanics, including the effect of repeated intubations, and (2) the relation between intubation force and the motion of an injured cervical segment. METHODS: Fourteen cadavers were serially intubated using force-sensing Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes in random order, with simultaneous cervical spine motion recorded with lateral fluoroscopy. Motion of the C1-C2 segment was measured in the intact and injured state (type II odontoid fracture). Injured C1-C2 motion was proportionately corrected for changes in intubation forces that occurred with repeated intubations. RESULTS: Cadaver intubation biomechanics were comparable with those of patients in all parameters other than C2-C5 extension. In cadavers, intubation force (set 2/set 1 force ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81; P = 0.002) and Oc-C5 extension (set 2 - set 1 difference = -6.1 degrees; 95% CI, -11.4 to -0.9; P = 0.025) decreased with repeated intubations. In cadavers, C1-C2 extension did not differ (1) between intact and injured states; or (2) in the injured state, between laryngoscopes (with and without force correction). With force correction, in the injured state, C1-C2 subluxation was greater with the Airtraq (mean difference 2.8 mm; 95% CI, 0.7 to 4.9 mm; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: With limitations, cadavers may be clinically relevant models of intubation biomechanics and cervical spine motion. In the setting of a type II odontoid fracture, C1-C2 motion during intubation with either the Macintosh or the Airtraq does not appear to greatly exceed physiologic values or to have a high likelihood of hyperextension or direct cord compression.
Authors: Gregory D Carlson; Carey D Gorden; Heather S Oliff; Jay J Pillai; Joseph C LaManna Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Shiyao Liao; Niko R E Schneider; Frank Weilbacher; Anne Stehr; Stefan Matschke; Paul A Grützner; Erik Popp; Michael Kreinest Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: F Weilbacher; N R E Schneider; S Liao; M Münzberg; M A Weigand; M Kreinest; E Popp Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Bradley J Hindman; Royce W Woodroffe; Mario Zanaty; Hiroto Kawasaki; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Christian M Puttlitz; Benjamin C Gadomski Journal: A A Pract Date: 2019-08-15
Authors: Shiyao Liao; Niko R E Schneider; Petra Hüttlin; Paul A Grützner; Frank Weilbacher; Stefan Matschke; Erik Popp; Michael Kreinest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shiyao Liao; Erik Popp; Petra Hüttlin; Frank Weilbacher; Matthias Münzberg; Niko Schneider; Michael Kreinest Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.692