Search

Background and Aims: Airway management in patients with cervical spine pathology is challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate GlideScope (GVL) and D blade of C-MAC (CMAC-D) using manual inline axial stabilisation (MIAS) for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine injury/pathology. Methods: This is a randomised, single-blind, hospital-based study. After obtaining informed consent, 54 patients with cervical spine pathology/injury were grouped into GVL group or CMAC-D group, (n = 27 each) based on computer-generated random number table. Preoperative airway difficulty score (ADS) was calculated. The primary outcome of the study was intubation difficulty score (IDS) and the secondary outcomes included total time taken to secure airway, failure to intubate, haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. Data was represented in the form of number (%) or mean and standard deviation and median and interquartile range as appropriate. Chi square test was used for analysing IDS. Results: The mean ± SD of IDS of the CMAC-D and GVL groups were 0.04 ± 0.2 (0.04–0.11) and 0.19 ± 0.40 (0.03–0.34), respectively, (P value = 0.096). The number (%) of patients with IDS > 0 was 1 (3.7) in CMAC-D and 5 (18.5) in GVL group, (P value = 0.192). Demographic data, ADS, Cormack–Lehane grading, success rate, time of tracheal intubation, type of surgeries, haemodynamic parameters and post-operative complications were similar in both the groups. Conclusion: Both GVL and CMAC-D with MIAS are equally efficacious in tracheal intubation in cervical spine injury/pathology patients without other difficult airway management criteria.

Background and Aims: Airway management in patients with cervical spine pathology is challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate GlideScope (GVL) and D blade of C‑MAC (CMAC‑D) using manual inline axial stabilisation (MIAS) for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine injury/pathology. Methods: This is a randomised, single‑blind, hospital‑based study. After obtaining informed consent, 54 patients with cervical spine pathology/injury were grouped into GVL group or CMAC‑D group, (n = 27 each) based on computer‑generated random number table. Preoperative airway difficulty score (ADS) was calculated. The primary outcome of the study was intubation difficulty score (IDS) and the secondary outcomes included total time taken to secure airway, failure to intubate, haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. Data was represented in the form of number (%) or mean and standard deviation and median and interquartile range as appropriate. Chi square test was used for analysing IDS. Results: The mean ± SD of IDS of the CMAC‑D and GVL groups were 0.04 ± 0.2 (0.04–0.11) and 0.19 ± 0.40 (0.03–0.34), respectively, (P value = 0.096). The number (%) of patients with IDS > 0 was 1 (3.7) in CMAC‑D and 5 (18.5) in GVL group, (P value = 0.192). Demographic data, ADS, Cormack–Lehane grading, success rate, time of tracheal intubation, type of surgeries, haemodynamic parameters and post‑operative complications were similar in both the groups. Conclusion: Both GVL and CMAC‑D with MIAS are equally efficacious in tracheal intubation in cervical spine injury/pathology patients without other difficult airway management criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is difficult to visualise the larynx using conventional laryngoscopy in the presence of cervical spine immobilisation. Airtraq® provides for easy and successful intubation in the neutral neck position. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Airtraq in comparison with the Mc Coy laryngoscope, when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilisation using hard cervical collar and manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilisation. Methods: A randomised, cross-over, open-labelled study was undertaken in 60 ASA I and II patients aged between 20 and 50 years, belonging to either gender, scheduled to undergo elective surgical procedures. Following induction and adequate muscle relaxation, they were intubated using either of the techniques first, followed by the other. Intubation time and Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS) were noted using Mc Coy laryngoscope and Airtraq. The anaesthesiologist was asked to grade the ease of intubation on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of 1-10. Chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between the groups and paired sample t-test for comparison of continuous data. IDS score and VAS were compared using Wilcoxon Signed ranked test. Results: The mean intubation time was 33.27 sec (13.25) for laryngoscopy and 28.95 sec (18.53) for Airtraq (P=0.32). The median IDS values were 4 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-6) and 0 (IQR 0-1) for laryngoscopy and Airtraq, respectively (P=0.007). The median Cormack Lehane glottic view grade was 3 (IQR 2-4) and 1 (IQR 1-1) for laryngoscopy and Airtraq, respectively (P=0.003). The ease of intubation on VAS was graded as 4 (IQR 3-5) for laryngoscopy and 2 (IQR 2-2) for Airtraq (P=0.033). There were two failures to intubate with the Airtraq. Conclusion: Airtraq improves the ease of intubation significantly when compared to Mc Coy blade in patients immobilised with cervical collar and manual in-line stabilisation simulating cervical spine injury.

Background: It is difficult to visualise the larynx using conventional laryngoscopy in the presence of cervical spine immobilisation. Airtraq® provides for easy and successful intubation in the neutral neck position. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Airtraq in comparison with the Mc Coy laryngoscope, when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilisation using hard cervical collar and manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilisation. Methods: A randomised, cross-over, open-labelled study was undertaken in 60 ASA I and II patients aged between 20 and 50 years, belonging to either gender, scheduled to undergo elective surgical procedures. Following induction and adequate muscle relaxation, they were intubated using either of the techniques first, followed by the other. Intubation time and Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS) were noted using Mc Coy laryngoscope and Airtraq. The anaesthesiologist was asked to grade the ease of intubation on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of 1-10. Chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between the groups and paired sample t-test for comparison of continuous data. IDS score and VAS were compared using Wilcoxon Signed ranked test. Results: The mean intubation time was 33.27 sec (13.25) for laryngoscopy and 28.95 sec (18.53) for Airtraq (P=0.32). The median IDS values were 4 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-6) and 0 (IQR 0-1) for laryngoscopy and Airtraq, respectively (P=0.007). The median Cormack Lehane glottic view grade was 3 (IQR 2-4) and 1 (IQR 1-1) for laryngoscopy and Airtraq, respectively (P=0.003). The ease of intubation on VAS was graded as 4 (IQR 3-5) for laryngoscopy and 2 (IQR 2-2) for Airtraq (P=0.033). There were two failures to intubate with the Airtraq. Conclusion: Airtraq improves the ease of intubation significantly when compared to Mc Coy blade in patients immobilised with cervical collar and manual in-line stabilisation simulating cervical spine injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]