Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion
学术急诊医学档案,
卷 13 编号 1 (2025),
6 六月 2025
,
第 e1 页
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v13i1.2421
摘要
Introduction: Intubating patients undergoing manual in-line stabilization (MILS) can make airway management more challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intubation with video-laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) in manikin with restricted neck motion using MILS.
Methods: In this comparative study, emergency medicine residents and paramedics were randomly allocated to two crossover sets. Then the intubation outcomes (success rate, time to successful intubation, and cervical spine movement) were compared between intubation with VL and I-LMA in a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, achieved through MILS.
Results: 64 participants with a mean age of 28.86 ± 4.03 (range: 24-47) years and a mean duration of intubation experience of 3.63 ± 1.35 years were studied (43.75% male, 81.3% emergency medicine resident). The intubation success rate was 62 out of 64 (96.88%) in the VL method and 52 out of 64 (81.25%) in the I-LMA method (p = 0.008). The mean time to successful intubation was 33.03±16.94 seconds in the VL method and 55.03±17.34 seconds in the I-LMA method (p < 0.001). The mean cervical range of motion (CROM) in flexion-extension was 4.38±1.82 degrees in the VL method and 4.13±3.20 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.158). The mean CROM in rotation was 4.27±2.62 degrees in the VL method and 4.65±2.47 degrees in the I-LMA method (p= 0.258) and the mean CROM in lateral bending was 5.35±4.45 degrees in the VL method and 7.71±6.14 degrees in the I-LMA method (p = 0.010).
Conclusion: In a manikin model with restricted cervical spine mobility, the utilization of VL significantly improved intubation success rates, reduced time to successful intubation, and limited CROM.
- Video laryngoscope
- intubating LMA
- Manual in-line stabilization
- intubation
- Success
##submission.howToCite##
参考
Kumar R, Lim J, Mekary RA, Rattani A, Dewan MC, Sharif SY, et al. Traumatic Spinal Injury: Global Epidemiology and Worldwide Volume. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e345-e63.
Xiong C, Hanafy S, Chan V, Hu ZJ, Sutton M, Escobar M, et al. Comorbidity in adults with traumatic brain injury and all-cause mortality: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e029072.
Austin N, Krishnamoorthy V, Dagal A. Airway management in cervical spine injury. International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science. 2014;4(1):50-6.
Athinartrattanapong N, Yuksen C, Leela-Amornsin S, Jenpanitpong C, Wongwaisayawan S, Leelapattana P. Prediction Score for Cervical Spine Fracture in Patients with Traumatic Neck Injury. Neurol Res Int. 2021;2021:6658679.
Wiles MD, Iliff HA, Brooks K, Da Silva EJ, Donnellon M, Gardner A, et al. Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury. Anaesthesia. 2024;79(8):856-68.
Alizadeh A, Dyck SM, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S. Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: An Overview of Pathophysiology, Models and Acute Injury Mechanisms. Front Neurol. 2019;10:282.
Liengswangwong W, Lertviboonluk N, Yuksen C, Laksanamapune T, Limroongreungrat W, Mongkolpichayaruk A, et al. Comparing the Efficacy of Long Spinal Board, Sked Stretcher, and Vacuum Mattress in Cervical Spine Immobilization; a Method-Oriented Experimental Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023;11(1):e44.
White CCt, Domeier RM, Millin MG. EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard - resource document to the position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(2):306-14.
McDonald N, Kriellaars D, Pryce RT. Patterns of change in prehospital spinal motion restriction: A retrospective database review. Acad Emerg Med. 2023;30(7):698-708.
Castro-Marin F, Gaither JB, Rice AD, R NB, Chikani V, Vossbrink A, et al. Prehospital Protocols Reducing Long Spinal Board Use Are Not Associated with a Change in Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020;24(3):401-10.
Hulldin M, Kängström J, Andersson Hagiwara M, Claesson A. Perceived exertion using two different EMS stretcher systems, report from a Swedish study. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(6):1040-4.
Wiles MD. Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed traumatic spinal cord injury: a narrative review of current evidence. Anaesthesia. 2022;77(10):1120-8.
Tienpratarn W, Yuksen C, Aramvanitch K, Suttapanit K, Mankong Y, Yaemluksanalert N, et al. Success Rate of Endotracheal Intubation Using Inline Stabilization with and without Cervical Hard Collar; a Comparative Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2020;8(1):e81.
Singleton BN, Morris FK, Yet B, Buggy DJ, Perkins ZB. Effectiveness of intubation devices in patients with cervical spine immobilisation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(5):1055-66.
Hoshijima H, Mihara T, Shiga T, Mizuta K. Indirect laryngoscopy is more effective than direct laryngoscopy when tracheal intubation is performed by novice operators: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2023.
Hoshijima H, Mihara T, Maruyama K, Denawa Y, Mizuta K, Shiga T, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2018;49:53-62.
Hansel J, Rogers AM, Lewis SR, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;4(4):Cd011136.
Paik H, Park HP. Randomized crossover trial comparing cervical spine motion during tracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope versus a C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope in a simulated immobilized cervical spine. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):201.
Suppan L, Tramèr MR, Niquille M, Grosgurin O, Marti C. Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(1):27-36.
Hwang SY, Lee SU, Lee TR, Yoon H, Park JH, Cha WC, et al. Usefulness of C-MAC video laryngoscope in direct laryngoscopy training in the emergency department: A propensity score matching analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208077.
Pieters BM, Wilbers NE, Huijzer M, Winkens B, van Zundert AA. Comparison of seven videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope in manikins by experienced and novice personnel. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(5):556-64.
Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, Rangasami J, Suntharalingam G, Gale R, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(2):323-52.
Holmes MG, Dagal A, Feinstein BA, Joffe AM. Airway Management Practice in Adults With an Unstable Cervical Spine: The Harborview Medical Center Experience. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(2):450-4.
Sudheesh K, Chethana GM, Chaithali H, Nethra SS, Devikarani D, Shwetha G. A new second-generation supraglottic airway device (Ambu(®) AuraGain(•)) versus intubating laryngeal mask airway as conduits for blind intubation - A prospective, randomised trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(7):558-64.
Staikou C, Tsaroucha A, Paraskeva A, Fassoulaki A. Association between factors predicting and assessing the airway and use of intubating laryngeal mask airway. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2010;20(4):553-8.
Saini S, Bala R, Singh R. Evaluation of the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) as an intubation conduit in patients with a cervical collar simulating fixed cervical spine. Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2017;23(2):24-8.
Timmermann A, Russo SG, Rosenblatt WH, Eich C, Barwing J, Roessler M, et al. Intubating laryngeal mask airway for difficult out-of-hospital airway management: a prospective evaluation. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(2):286-91.
Young B. The intubating laryngeal-mask airway may be an ideal device for airway control in the rural trauma patient. Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21(1):80-5.
Jakhar R, Saigal D, Kale S, Aggarwal S. Comparison of Videolaryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway for Tracheal Intubation with Manual-in-line Stabilization in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery. Anesth Essays Res. 2020;14(3):485-91.
Nuanprom P, Yuksen C, Tienpratarn W, Jamkrajang P. Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2024;12(1):e36.
Martino Cinnera A, Picerno P, Bisirri A, Koch G, Morone G, Vannozzi G. Upper limb assessment with inertial measurement units according to the international classification of functioning in stroke: a systematic review and correlation meta-analysis. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2024;31(1):66-85.
Yoon DH, Kim JH, Lee K, Cho JS, Jang SH, Lee SU. Inertial measurement unit sensor-based gait analysis in adults and older adults: A cross-sectional study. Gait Posture. 2024;107:212-7.
Marouf HM. King Vision vs. Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) For Intubation of Obese Patients. Anesthesia & Clinical Research. 2017;8(10):1-4.
Nileshwar A, Thudamaladinne A. Comparison of intubating laryngeal mask airway and Bullard laryngoscope for oro-tracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated limitation of cervical movements. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(2):292-6.
Pascarella G, Caruso S, Antinolfi V, Costa F, Sarubbi D, Agrò FE. The VL3 videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults: A prospective pilot study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020;14(3):318-22.
Ydemann M, Rovsing L, Lindekaer AL, Olsen KS. Intubation of the morbidly obese patient: GlideScope(®) vs. Fastrach™. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(6):755-61.
- 摘要 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.viewed##: 373 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##
- pdf (English) ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloaded##: 1474 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##
##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloadstatastics##
##plugins.block.makeSubmission.linkLabel##
SJR
COPE
