Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology · 2013
Assessment of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy with Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bhardwaj Neerja, Jain Kajal, Rao Madhusudan, Mandal Arup Kumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Truview laryngoscope provides an indirect view of the glottis and will cause less cervical spine movement since a ventral lifting force will not be required to visualize the glottis compared to Macintosh laryngoscope.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized crossover study to assess the degree of movement of cervical spine during endotracheal intubation with Truview laryngoscope was conducted in 25 adult ASA-I patients. After a standard anesthetic technique laryngoscopy was performed twice in each patient using in turn both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes. A baseline radiograph with the head and neck in a neutral position was followed by a second radiograph taken during each laryngoscopy. An experienced radiologist analyzed and measured the cervical movement.
RESULTS: Significant cervical spine movement occurred at all segments when compared to the baseline with both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes (P < 0.001). However, the movement was significantly less with Truview compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope at C0-C1 (21%; P = 0.005) and C1-C2 levels (32%; P = 0.009). The atlantooccipital distance (AOD) traversed while using Truview laryngoscope was significantly less than with Macintosh blade (26%; P = 0.001). Truview blade produced a better laryngoscopic view (P = 0.005) than Macintosh blade, but had a longer time to laryngoscopy (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Truview laryngoscope produced a better laryngoscopic view of glottis as compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy. It also produced significantly less cervical spine movement at C0-C1 and C1-C2 levels than with Macintosh laryngoscope in patients without cervical spine injury and without manual in-line stabilization (MILS). Further studies are warranted with Truview laryngoscope using MILS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized crossover study to assess the degree of movement of cervical spine during endotracheal intubation with Truview laryngoscope was conducted in 25 adult ASA-I patients. After a standard anesthetic technique laryngoscopy was performed twice in each patient using in turn both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes. A baseline radiograph with the head and neck in a neutral position was followed by a second radiograph taken during each laryngoscopy. An experienced radiologist analyzed and measured the cervical movement.
RESULTS: Significant cervical spine movement occurred at all segments when compared to the baseline with both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes (P < 0.001). However, the movement was significantly less with Truview compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope at C0-C1 (21%; P = 0.005) and C1-C2 levels (32%; P = 0.009). The atlantooccipital distance (AOD) traversed while using Truview laryngoscope was significantly less than with Macintosh blade (26%; P = 0.001). Truview blade produced a better laryngoscopic view (P = 0.005) than Macintosh blade, but had a longer time to laryngoscopy (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Truview laryngoscope produced a better laryngoscopic view of glottis as compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy. It also produced significantly less cervical spine movement at C0-C1 and C1-C2 levels than with Macintosh laryngoscope in patients without cervical spine injury and without manual in-line stabilization (MILS). Further studies are warranted with Truview laryngoscope using MILS.