A Comparison of the Effects of Different Types of Laryngoscope on the Cervical Motions: Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background: The rate of cervical injury among all trauma patients is 3.1%. The most important point during intubation of those patients is not to increase the cervical injury. Aims: In this study, we hypothesize that there will be a minimal cervical extension during a laryngoscopy with the use of optical view laryngoscopes. Study Design: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Methods: One hundred and fifty adult patients with ASA physical status I to III were enrolled in our study. After routine anesthesia induction, we randomly assigned the patients into three groups according to the type of laryngoscope. Macintosh type, Truview EVO2® type and Airtraq® type laryngoscopes were used in Group DL (n=50), Group TW (n=50) and Group ATQ (n=50), respectively. After applying general anesthesia induction and mask ventilation, all of the patients were positioned in the neutral position. An inclinometer was placed on the forehead of the patients. Then, the extension angle during intubation and the Cormack-Lehane Score were measured and the time to intubation was recorded. Results: One of the 50 patients in the DL Group, 2 of the 50 patients in the TW Group, and 4 of the 50 patients in the ATQ Group were excluded from the study because of the failure of intubation at defined times. The angle of cervical extension during laryngoscopy was found to be 27.24±6.71, 18.08±7.53, and 14.54±4.09 degrees in the Groups DL, TV and ATQ, respectively; these differences also had statistical significance (p=0.000). The duration of intubation was found to be 13.59±5.49, 23.60±15.23, and 29.80±13.82 seconds in Groups DL, TV and ATQ, respectively (p=0.000). Conclusion: A minimal cervical motion was obtained during tracheal intubation with the use of Truview EVO2® and Airtraq® types of laryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Keywords

• Airtraq®, airway management, intratracheal equipment, intubation, Macintosh, Truview EVO2®

References

1. 1. Branco BC, Plurad D, Green DJ, Inaba K, Lam L, Cestero R, et al. Incidence and clinical predictors for tracheostomy after cervical spinal cord injury: a National Trauma Databank review. J Trauma 2011;70:111-5. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Crosby ET. Airway management in adults after cervical spine trauma. Anesthesiology 2006;104:1293-318. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Carlino C, Pastore JC, Battistini GM, Cancellieri F, De Caria D, Ruggieri N, et al. Training resident anesthesiologists in adult challenging intubation comparing TruView EVO2 and Macintosh laryngoscope: a preliminary study. Minerva Anestesiol 2009;75:563-7.
4. 4. Turkstra TP, Pelz DM, Jones PM. Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison of the AirTraq Laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope. Anesthesiology 2009;111:97-101. [CrossRef]
5. 5. Saracoglu KT, Eti Z, Gogus FY. Airtraq optical laryngoscope: advantages and disadvantages. Middle East J Anesthesiol 2013;22:135-416.
6. 6. Nasim S, Maharaj CH, Malik MA, O’ Donnell J, Higgins BD, Laffey JG. Comparison of the Glidescope and Pentax AWS laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by advanced paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation. BMC Emerg Med 2009;17;9:9.
7. 7. Malik MA, O’Donoghue C, Carney J, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of the Glidescope, the Pentax AWS, and the Truview EVO2 with the Macintosh laryngoscope in experienced anaesthetists: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth 2009;102:128-34. [CrossRef]
8. 8. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:723-30. [CrossRef]

9. 9. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kunzel KH, Gaber O, Boehler M, Puhringer F. Cervical spine motion during airway management: a cinefluoroscopic study of the posteriorly destabilized third cervical vertebrae in human cadavers. Anesth Analg 2000;91:1274-8. [CrossRef]
10. 10. Turkstra TP, Craen RA, Pelz DM, Gelb AW. Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison during intubation with lighted stylet, GlideScope, and Macintosh laryngoscope. Anesth Analg 2005;101:910-5. [CrossRef]
11. 11. Hindman BJ, Santoni BG, Puttlitz CM, From RP, Todd MM. Intubation biomechanics: laryngoscope force and cervical spine motion during intubation with Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology 2014;121:260-71. [CrossRef]
12. 12. Li JB, Xiong YC, Wang XL, Fan XH, Li Y, Xu H, et al. An evaluation of the TruView EVO2 laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2007;62:940-3. [CrossRef]
13. 13. Barak M, Philipchuck P, Abecassis P, Katz Y. A comparison of the Truview blade with the Macintosh blade in adult patients. Anaesthesia 2007;62:827-31. [CrossRef]
14. 14. Matsumoto S, Asai T, Shingu K. TruViewEVO2 videolaryngoscope. Masui 2007;56:213-7.
15. 15. Matsumoto S, Asai T, Shingu K. Truview video laryngoscope in patients with difficult airways. Anesth Analg 2006;103: 492-3. [CrossRef]
16. 16. Kulkarni AP, Tirmanwar AS. Comparison of glottic visualisation and ease of intubation with different laryngoscope blades. Indian J Anaesth 2013;57:170-4. [CrossRef]
17. 17. McElwain J, Laffey JG. Comparison of the C-MAC(R), Airtraq(R), and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2011;107:258-64. [CrossRef]
18. 18. Arora S, Sayeed H, Bhardwaj N. A comparison of Truview EVO2 laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomized crossover clinical trial. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:244-8. [CrossRef]
19. 19. Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology 2007;107:53-9. [CrossRef]
20. 20. Timanaykar RT, Anand LK, Palta S. A randomized controlled study to evaluate and compare Truview blade with Macintosh blade for laryngoscopy and intubation under general anesthesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2011;27:199-204. [CrossRef]