Cargando…
GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6644200/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31391617 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_3_19 |
_version_ | 1783437210043809792 |
---|---|
author | Kumar, Dinesh Gombar, Satinder Ahuja, Vanita Malhotra, Arvind Gupta, Shruti |
author_facet | Kumar, Dinesh Gombar, Satinder Ahuja, Vanita Malhotra, Arvind Gupta, Shruti |
author_sort | Kumar, Dinesh |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6644200 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66442002019-08-07 GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial Kumar, Dinesh Gombar, Satinder Ahuja, Vanita Malhotra, Arvind Gupta, Shruti Indian J Anaesth Original Article 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6644200/ /pubmed/31391617 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_3_19 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Indian Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kumar, Dinesh Gombar, Satinder Ahuja, Vanita Malhotra, Arvind Gupta, Shruti GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title | GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title_full | GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title_short | GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | glidescope versus d-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6644200/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31391617 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_3_19 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kumardinesh glidescopeversusdbladefortrachealintubationincervicalspinepatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gombarsatinder glidescopeversusdbladefortrachealintubationincervicalspinepatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT ahujavanita glidescopeversusdbladefortrachealintubationincervicalspinepatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT malhotraarvind glidescopeversusdbladefortrachealintubationincervicalspinepatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT guptashruti glidescopeversusdbladefortrachealintubationincervicalspinepatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrial |