Cargando…
Comparison of video-stylet and conventional laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical spine immobilization: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Although minimization of cervical spine motion by using a neck collar or manual in-line stabilization is recommended for urgent tracheal intubation (TI) in patients with known or suspected cervical spine injury (CSI), it may worsen glottic visualization. The overall performance of video-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35984197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000030032 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Although minimization of cervical spine motion by using a neck collar or manual in-line stabilization is recommended for urgent tracheal intubation (TI) in patients with known or suspected cervical spine injury (CSI), it may worsen glottic visualization. The overall performance of video-stylets during TI in patients with neck immobilization remains unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed at comparing the intubation outcomes of different video-stylets with those of conventional laryngoscopes in patients with cervical immobilization. METHOD: The databases of Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to June 2021 to identify trials comparing intubation outcomes between video-stylets and conventional laryngoscopes. The primary outcome was first-pass success rate, while secondary outcomes included overall success rate, time to intubation, the risk of intubation-associated sore throat, or tissue damage. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials published between 2007 and 2013 involving 487 participants, all in an operating room setting, were analyzed. The video-stylets investigated included Bonfils intubation fiberscope, Levitan FPS Scope, and Shikani optical stylet. There was no difference in first-pass success rate (risk ratio [RR] =1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89–1.31, P = .46], overall success rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.93–1.22, P = .4), intubation time [mean difference = 4.53 seconds, 95% CI: –8.45 to 17.51, P = .49), and risk of tissue damage (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.16–1.3, P = .14) between the 2 groups. The risk of sore throat was lower with video-stylets compared to that with laryngoscopes (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23–0.9, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Our results did not support the use of video-stylets as the first choice for patients with neck immobilization. Further studies are required to verify the efficacy of video-stylets in the nonoperating room setting. |
---|