Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMalik, M. A.
dc.contributor.authorMaharaj, C. H.
dc.contributor.authorHarte, B. H.
dc.contributor.authorLaffey, J. G.
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-20T16:15:42Z
dc.date.available2018-09-20T16:15:42Z
dc.date.issued2008-08-08
dc.identifier.citationMalik, M. A. Maharaj, C. H.; Harte, B. H.; Laffey, J. G. (2008). Comparison of macintosh, truview evo2(r), glidescope(r), and airwayscope(r) laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. British Journal of Anaesthesia 101 (5), 723-730
dc.identifier.issn0007-0912,1471-6771
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10379/12607
dc.description.abstractBackground. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentax AWS (R), Glidescope (R), and the Truview EVO2 (R), in comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope, when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. One hundred and twenty consenting patients presenting for surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using a Macintosh (n=30), Glidescope (R) (n=30), Truview EVO2 (R) (n=30), or AWS (R) (n=30) laryngoscope. All patients were intubated by one of the three anaesthetists experienced in the use of each laryngoscope. The Glidescope (R), AWS (R), and Truview EVO2 (R) each reduced the intubation difficulty score (IDS), improved the Cormack and Lehane glottic view, and reduced the need for optimization manoeuvres, compared with the Macintosh. The mean IDS was significantly lower with the Glidescope (R) and AWS (R) compared with the Truview EVO2 (R) device, and the IDS was lowest with the AWS (R). The duration of tracheal intubation attempts was significantly shorter with the Macintosh compared with the other devices. There were no differences in success rates between the devices tested. The AWS (R) produced the least haemodynamic stimulation. The Glidescope (R) and AWS (R) laryngoscopes required more time but reduced intubation difficulty and improved glottic view over the Macintosh laryngoscope more than the Truview EVO2 (R) laryngoscope when used in patients undergoing cervical spine immobilization.
dc.publisherOxford University Press (OUP)
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/
dc.subjectanaesthetic techniques, laryngoscopy
dc.subjectcomplications, intubation tracheal
dc.subjectcomplications, spinal injury
dc.subjectequipment, laryngoscopes
dc.subjectlarynx, laryngoscopy
dc.subjectemergency tracheal intubation
dc.subjectcreutzfeldt-jakob-disease
dc.subjectclosed claims analysis
dc.subjectendotracheal intubation
dc.subjectdifficult airway
dc.subjectadult patients
dc.subjectmanagement
dc.subjectvideolaryngoscope
dc.subjectanesthesia
dc.subjectmovements
dc.titleComparison of macintosh, truview evo2(r), glidescope(r), and airwayscope(r) laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/bja/aen231
dc.local.publishedsourcehttps://academic.oup.com/bja/article-pdf/101/5/723/640843/aen231.pdf
nui.item.downloads0


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland