Cargando…

Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Literature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope and Truview(®) in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for trache...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhola, Ruchi, Bhalla, Swaran, Gupta, Radha, Singh, Ishwar, Kumar, Sunil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25024468
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.135035
_version_ 1782480720427483136
author Bhola, Ruchi
Bhalla, Swaran
Gupta, Radha
Singh, Ishwar
Kumar, Sunil
author_facet Bhola, Ruchi
Bhalla, Swaran
Gupta, Radha
Singh, Ishwar
Kumar, Sunil
author_sort Bhola, Ruchi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Literature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope and Truview(®) in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated cervical spine injury using manual in-line stabilisation. METHODS: This prospective randomised study was undertaken in operation theatre of a tertiary referral centre after approval from the Institutional Review Board. A total of 100 consenting patients presenting for elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope (n = 50) or Truview(®) (n = 50) laryngoscope. In all patients, we applied manual-in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine throughout the airway management. Statistical testing was conducted with the statistical package for the social science system version SPSS 17.0. Demographic data, airway assessment and haemodynamics were compared using the Chi-square test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The time to successful intubation was less with McGrath video laryngoscope when compared to Truview (30.02 s vs. 38.72 s). However, there was no significant difference between laryngoscopic views obtained in both groups. The number of second intubation attempts required and incidence of complications were negligible with both devices. Success rate of intubation with both devices was 100%. Intubation with McGrath Video laryngoscope caused lesser alterations in haemodynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Both laryngoscopes are reliable in case of simulated cervical spine injury using manual-in-line stabilisation with 100% success rate and good glottic view.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4090991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40909912014-07-14 Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope Bhola, Ruchi Bhalla, Swaran Gupta, Radha Singh, Ishwar Kumar, Sunil Indian J Anaesth Clinical Investigation BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Literature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope and Truview(®) in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated cervical spine injury using manual in-line stabilisation. METHODS: This prospective randomised study was undertaken in operation theatre of a tertiary referral centre after approval from the Institutional Review Board. A total of 100 consenting patients presenting for elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using McGrath(®) Video laryngoscope (n = 50) or Truview(®) (n = 50) laryngoscope. In all patients, we applied manual-in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine throughout the airway management. Statistical testing was conducted with the statistical package for the social science system version SPSS 17.0. Demographic data, airway assessment and haemodynamics were compared using the Chi-square test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The time to successful intubation was less with McGrath video laryngoscope when compared to Truview (30.02 s vs. 38.72 s). However, there was no significant difference between laryngoscopic views obtained in both groups. The number of second intubation attempts required and incidence of complications were negligible with both devices. Success rate of intubation with both devices was 100%. Intubation with McGrath Video laryngoscope caused lesser alterations in haemodynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Both laryngoscopes are reliable in case of simulated cervical spine injury using manual-in-line stabilisation with 100% success rate and good glottic view. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4090991/ /pubmed/25024468 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.135035 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Investigation
Bhola, Ruchi
Bhalla, Swaran
Gupta, Radha
Singh, Ishwar
Kumar, Sunil
Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title_full Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title_fullStr Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title_full_unstemmed Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title_short Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath(®) video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2(®) laryngoscope
title_sort tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of mcgrath(®) video laryngoscope and truview evo2(®) laryngoscope
topic Clinical Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25024468
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.135035
work_keys_str_mv AT bholaruchi trachealintubationinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationacomparisonofmcgrathvideolaryngoscopeandtruviewevo2laryngoscope
AT bhallaswaran trachealintubationinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationacomparisonofmcgrathvideolaryngoscopeandtruviewevo2laryngoscope
AT guptaradha trachealintubationinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationacomparisonofmcgrathvideolaryngoscopeandtruviewevo2laryngoscope
AT singhishwar trachealintubationinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationacomparisonofmcgrathvideolaryngoscopeandtruviewevo2laryngoscope
AT kumarsunil trachealintubationinpatientswithcervicalspineimmobilizationacomparisonofmcgrathvideolaryngoscopeandtruviewevo2laryngoscope