Cargando…

Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Hena...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramesh, Killo, Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran, Bidkar, Prasanna U
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37711910
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43471
_version_ 1785105652761231360
author Ramesh, Killo
Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran
Bidkar, Prasanna U
author_facet Ramesh, Killo
Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran
Bidkar, Prasanna U
author_sort Ramesh, Killo
collection PubMed
description Background: Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Methods: A total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded. Results: The first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization. Conclusions: We conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubation with King Vision VL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10499184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104991842023-09-14 Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial Ramesh, Killo Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran Bidkar, Prasanna U Cureus Anesthesiology Background: Glottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Methods: A total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded. Results: The first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization. Conclusions: We conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubation with King Vision VL. Cureus 2023-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10499184/ /pubmed/37711910 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43471 Text en Copyright © 2023, Ramesh et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Anesthesiology
Ramesh, Killo
Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran
Bidkar, Prasanna U
Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort comparison of tracheal intubation using king vision (non-channeled blade) and tuoren video laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization: a randomized clinical trial
topic Anesthesiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37711910
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43471
work_keys_str_mv AT rameshkillo comparisonoftrachealintubationusingkingvisionnonchanneledbladeandtuorenvideolaryngoscopesinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationbymanualinlinestabilizationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT srinivasangnanasekaran comparisonoftrachealintubationusingkingvisionnonchanneledbladeandtuorenvideolaryngoscopesinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationbymanualinlinestabilizationarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT bidkarprasannau comparisonoftrachealintubationusingkingvisionnonchanneledbladeandtuorenvideolaryngoscopesinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationbymanualinlinestabilizationarandomizedclinicaltrial