The application of in-line stabilization (ILS) during endotracheal intubation of patients with suspected cervical spine injury makes visualization of the laryngeal inlet difficult1. We tested the hypothesis that the GL2 provides a better view of the larynx and results in a higher rate of successful intubation than the Mac. Materials and Methods Following institutional approval, written informed consent was obtained from ASA I and II patients requiring general endotracheal anesthesia. Exclusion criteria were: history of prior difficult intubation, morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 35 kg/m2), gastroesophageal reflux disease and poor dentition. Patients were randomized into either GL or Mac. After onset of paralysis, ILS was applied. In GL patients, laryngoscopy was first performed with a Mac, then GL. The view obtained with either was scored3. If "good" (I or IIa), intubation was attempted with the GL. Otherwise, external laryngeal manipulation (ELM) was applied and if the view was "good", the larynx was intubated. If not, the attempt was aborted and the intubation was considered "failed". Patients in the Mac group had the same in the reverse order, with intubation attempted at Mac laryngoscopy. Time to intubation was recorded as the interval from when the blade passed the incisors to confirmation of tube placement by capnography. Means were compared using unpaired Student's T-test and proportions, with Chi-test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results (See Table 1) Discussion GL provided a good view of the laryngeal inlet in 95% of attempts versus 44% with the Mac. The numbers improved to 100% and 60% with ELM. The success rate of intubation was higher with the GL (100% versus 65% with the Mac), but it took longer. Our preliminary data suggest that in comparison to Mac, GL is a better tool for laryngeal visualization and intubation in patients in whom ILS is applied.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.