Comparison between c-mac<sup>®</sup> video-laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope during cervical spine immobilization

Shahir Hm Akbar, Ooi Joanna Su Min

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-50
Number of pages8
JournalMiddle East Journal of Anesthesiology
Volume23
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Laryngoscopes
Immobilization
Spine
Intubation
Hemodynamics
Single-Blind Method
Equipment and Supplies
General Anesthesia
Neck
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • C-MAC<sup>®</sup> laryngoscope
  • Intubation
  • Macintosh laryngoscope
  • Manual inline stabilization
  • Neck immobilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{c27c982df43940fa985bc4f61952567c,
title = "Comparison between c-mac{\circledR} video-laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope during cervical spine immobilization",
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{\circledR}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{\circledR} 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{\circledR} 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{\circledR} 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{\circledR} video-laryngoscope was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for patients requiring intubation when manual inline neck stabilization was applied.",
keywords = "C-MAC<sup>{\circledR}</sup> laryngoscope, Intubation, Macintosh laryngoscope, Manual inline stabilization, Neck immobilization",
author = "Akbar, {Shahir Hm} and {Su Min}, {Ooi Joanna}",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "43--50",
journal = "Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology",
issn = "0544-0440",
publisher = "American University of Beirut",
number = "1",

}

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 -