Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade, Conventional C-MAC, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Simulated Easy and Difficult Airways

Kılıçaslan, Alper; Topal, Ahmet; Erol, Atilla; Uzun, Sema Tuncer

doi:10.5152/tjar.2014.59672

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a manikin-based study with cervical immobilization by Kılıçaslan et al ., good grade view (CL grade 1 and 2) was obtained by all the laryngoscopists. [ 11 ] Similar views were obtained in another manikin-based study by Jain et al . using C-MAC and D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscopes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…In contrast, 90% and 100% glottis visualization was obtained by Kılıçaslan A et al . [ 11 ] on simulated difficult airway in manikins. We studied mean POGO score [ Table 3 ] compared to median by Kılıçaslan A et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We studied mean POGO score [ Table 3 ] compared to median by Kılıçaslan A et al . [ 11 ] Nowadays, keeping the tip of the blade little proximal is advocated with VL for better visualization of the tip of ET tube and easier manoeuvring of the tube in the oral cavity. This proximal placing of blade results in poor (more CL grades and poor POGO score) glottic visualization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial

Shravanalakshmi¹,

Bidkar²,

Narmadalakshmi³

et al. 2017

Surg Neurol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Glottic visualization can be difficult with cervical immobilization in patients with cervical spine injury. Indirect laryngoscopes may provide better glottic visualization in these groups of patients. Hence, we compared King Vision videolaryngoscope, C-MAC videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with proven/suspected cervical spine injury.Methods:After standard induction of anesthesia, 135 patients were randomized into three groups: group C (conventional C-MAC videolaryngoscope), group K (King Vision videolaryngoscope), and group D (D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscope). Cervical immobilization was maintained with Manual in line stabilization with anterior part of cervical collar removed. First pass intubation success, time for intubation, and glottic visualization (Cormack – Lehane grade and percentage of glottic opening) were noted. Intubation difficulty score (IDS) was used for grading difficulty of intubation. Five-point Likert scale was used for ease of insertion of laryngoscope.Results:First attempt success rate were 100% (45/45), 93.3% (42/45), and 95.6% (43/45) in patients using conventional C-MAC, King Vision, and D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscopes, respectively. Time for intubation in seconds was significantly faster with conventional C-MAC videolaryngoscope (23.3 ± 4.7) compared to D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscope (26.7 ± 7.1), whereas conventional C-MAC and King Vision were comparable (24.9 ± 7.2). Good grade glottic visualization was obtained with all the three videolaryngoscopes.Conclusion:All the videolaryngoscopes provided good glottic visualization and first attempt success rate. Conventional C-MAC insertion was significantly easier. We conclude that all the three videolaryngoscopes can be used effectively in patients with cervical spine injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial

Shravanalakshmi¹,

Bidkar²,

Narmadalakshmi³

et al. 2017

Surg Neurol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This shows that C-Mac D-Blade improves glottic views in terms of Cormack–Lehane grading. This is supported by other studies done by Lili et al .,[ 19 ] Cavus et al .,[ 20 ] Kiliçaslan et al .,[ 21 ] and Serocki et al . [ 22 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized controlled trial comparing C Mac D Blade and Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing surgeries for head and neck cancer

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:Several devices are available to take care of difficult airway, but C-MAC D-Blade has scant evidence of its use in nasotracheal intubation in a difficult airway scenario.Aims and Objectives:We compared the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope™, and the standard Macintosh laryngoscope for nasal intubation in patients with difficult airways selected by El-Ganzouri risk index using parameters of time and attempts required for intubation, glottic view in terms of Cormack–Lehane grade, ease of intubation, success rate, use of accessory maneuvers, incidence of complications, and hemodynamic changes.Methods:One hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I–III patients aged 20–70 years with EGRI score 1–≤7 scheduled for head and neck surgery requiring nasal intubation. ASA IV patients, patients with mouth opening <2.5 cm, patients difficult to mask ventilate, and patients with hyperkalemia and history of malignant hyperthermia were excluded from the study. Primary outcome was time taken to intubation, and secondary outcomes were a number of attempts, glottic view in terms of C/L grade, use of accessory maneuvers, success rate, incidence of trauma, ease of intubation, and hemodynamic changes before and after intubation.Results:Time required for intubation was less (39.56 ± 15.65 s) in Group C than in Group M (50.34 ± 15.65 s). Cormack–Lehane Grade I and II view were more in C-MAC D-Blade group (P < 0.05). Success rate and ease of intubation were found to be more in C-MAC D-Blade group than in Macintosh group (P < 0.05). A number of attempts and incidence of complications such as trauma, bleeding, and failed intubation were greater in Macintosh group than in C-MAC D-Blade group. Hemodynamic changes were observed to be comparable in both the groups.Conclusion:C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope™ is a better tool in anesthetic management of difficult airway for nasal intubation compared to conventional Macintosh laryngoscope.

show abstract

“…D blade of C-MAC (CMAC-D) is reported to cause less-dental pressure than the conventional C-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with cervical spine immobilisation. [611] A study compared GlideScope with CMAC in patients with cervical spine immobilisation and reported both devices to be effective, although intubation was more often successful with GlideScope. [12] Although video laryngoscopes have been compared with other airway devices in manikin studies[10] or in simulated difficult airway scenario,[16111213] studies are scant in patients with real cervical spine injury/pathology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Airway management in patients with cervical spine pathology is challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate GlideScope (GVL) and D blade of C-MAC (CMAC-D) using manual inline axial stabilisation (MIAS) for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine injury/pathology. Methods: This is a randomised, single-blind, hospital-based study. After obtaining informed consent, 54 patients with cervical spine pathology/injury were grouped into GVL group or CMAC-D group, ( n = 27 each) based on computer-generated random number table. Preoperative airway difficulty score (ADS) was calculated. The primary outcome of the study was intubation difficulty score (IDS) and the secondary outcomes included total time taken to secure airway, failure to intubate, haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. Data was represented in the form of number (%) or mean and standard deviation and median and interquartile range as appropriate. Chi square test was used for analysing IDS. Results: The mean ± SD of IDS of the CMAC-D and GVL groups were 0.04 ± 0.2 (0.04–0.11) and 0.19 ± 0.40 (0.03–0.34), respectively, ( P value = 0.096). The number (%) of patients with IDS > 0 was 1 (3.7) in CMAC-D and 5 (18.5) in GVL group, ( P value = 0.192). Demographic data, ADS, Cormack–Lehane grading, success rate, time of tracheal intubation, type of surgeries, haemodynamic parameters and post-operative complications were similar in both the groups. Conclusion: Both GVL and CMAC-D with MIAS are equally efficacious in tracheal intubation in cervical spine injury/pathology patients without other difficult airway management criteria.

show abstract

Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade, Conventional C-MAC, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes in Simulated Easy and Difficult Airways

Cited by 23 publications

References 34 publications

Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial

Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial

A randomized controlled trial comparing C Mac D Blade and Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing surgeries for head and neck cancer

GlideScope versus D-blade for tracheal intubation in cervical spine patients: A randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About