Abstract
Background: Video-laryngoscopes have gained popularity in the recent years and have shown definite advantages over the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscopes. However, there is still insufficient evidence comparing the C-MAC<sup>®</sup>with the Macintosh for patients during manual inline stabilization (MILS). Methods: This prospective, randomized, single blind study was carried out to compare tracheal intubation using the C-MAC<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients during MILS. Ninety consented patients, without features of difficult airway, who required general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited. Intubation was performed with either the C-MAC<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope by one single investigator experienced with both devices. Various parameters which included Cormack and Lehane score, time to intubate, intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, complications and hemodynamic changes were recorded over the initial period of 5 minutes. Results: C-MAC<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope performed significantly better with lower Cormack and Lehane grades, shorter time to intubate of 32.7 ± 6.8 vs. 38.8 ± 8.9 seconds (p=0.001) and needed less optimization maneuvers. There were no significant differences seen in the intubation attempts, complications or hemodynamic status of the patients with either device. Conclusion: The C-MAC<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 43-50 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- C-MAC<sup>®</sup> laryngoscope
- Intubation
- Macintosh laryngoscope
- Manual inline stabilization
- Neck immobilization
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Cite this
Comparison between c-mac<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope during cervical spine immobilization. / Akbar, Shahir Hm; Su Min, Ooi Joanna.
In: Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2015, p. 43-50.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison between c-mac® video-laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope during cervical spine immobilization
AU - Akbar, Shahir Hm
AU - Su Min, Ooi Joanna
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Background: Video-laryngoscopes have gained popularity in the recent years and have shown definite advantages over the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscopes. However, there is still insufficient evidence comparing the C-MAC®with the Macintosh for patients during manual inline stabilization (MILS). Methods: This prospective, randomized, single blind study was carried out to compare tracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients during MILS. Ninety consented patients, without features of difficult airway, who required general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited. Intubation was performed with either the C-MAC® video-laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope by one single investigator experienced with both devices. Various parameters which included Cormack and Lehane score, time to intubate, intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, complications and hemodynamic changes were recorded over the initial period of 5 minutes. Results: C-MAC® video-laryngoscope performed significantly better with lower Cormack and Lehane grades, shorter time to intubate of 32.7 ± 6.8 vs. 38.8 ± 8.9 seconds (p=0.001) and needed less optimization maneuvers. There were no significant differences seen in the intubation attempts, complications or hemodynamic status of the patients with either device. Conclusion: The C-MAC® video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.
AB - Background: Video-laryngoscopes have gained popularity in the recent years and have shown definite advantages over the conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscopes. However, there is still insufficient evidence comparing the C-MAC®with the Macintosh for patients during manual inline stabilization (MILS). Methods: This prospective, randomized, single blind study was carried out to compare tracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video-laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients during MILS. Ninety consented patients, without features of difficult airway, who required general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited. Intubation was performed with either the C-MAC® video-laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope by one single investigator experienced with both devices. Various parameters which included Cormack and Lehane score, time to intubate, intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, complications and hemodynamic changes were recorded over the initial period of 5 minutes. Results: C-MAC® video-laryngoscope performed significantly better with lower Cormack and Lehane grades, shorter time to intubate of 32.7 ± 6.8 vs. 38.8 ± 8.9 seconds (p=0.001) and needed less optimization maneuvers. There were no significant differences seen in the intubation attempts, complications or hemodynamic status of the patients with either device. Conclusion: The C-MAC® video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.
KW - C-MAC<sup>®</sup> laryngoscope
KW - Intubation
KW - Macintosh laryngoscope
KW - Manual inline stabilization
KW - Neck immobilization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930826230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930826230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 23
SP - 43
EP - 50
JO - Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology
JF - Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology
SN - 0544-0440
IS - 1
ER -