Comparison of the C-MAC(®) and GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine disorders and immobilisation.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 25265994.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1111/anae.12858.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
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.
Medical subject headings
- Immobilization
- Intubation, Intratracheal
- Laryngoscopes
- Laryngoscopy
- Spinal Diseases
- Video Recording