JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Robitaille, A. Articles by Drolet, P. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robitaille, A. Articles by Drolet, P. Related Collections Neuroanesthesia Equipment Airway

---

NEUROSURGICAL ANESTHESIA

Cervical Spine Motion During Tracheal Intubation with Manual In-Line Stabilization: Direct Laryngoscopy versus GlideScope® Videolaryngoscopy

Arnaud Robitaille, MD^*, Stephan R. Williams, MD^*, Marie-Hélène Tremblay, MD^*, François Guilbert, MD, FRCPC, Mélanie Thériault, MD, and Pierre Drolet, MD, FRCPC

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Hôpital Notre-Dame, and Department of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal, Canada.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Stephan Williams, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Hôpital Notre-Dame, 1560 Sherbrooke East, Montreal, Canada H2L 4M1. Address e-mail to stephan.williams{at}umontreal.ca.

BACKGROUND: The optimal tracheal intubation technique for patients with potential cervical (C) spine injury remains controversial. Using continuous cinefluoroscopy, we conducted a prospective study comparing C-spine movement during intubation using direct laryngoscopy (DL) or GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy (GVL), with uninterrupted manual in-line stabilization of the head by an assistant.

METHODS: Twenty patients without C-spine pathology were studied. After induction of general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade, both DL and GVL were performed on every patient in random order. Cinefluoroscopic images of C-spine movement during GVL and DL were acquired and divided into four stages: a baseline image before airway manipulation, glottic visualization, insertion of the endotracheal tube into the glottis, and tracheal intubation. Peak segmental motion from the occiput to C5 was measured offline for each patient and each stage, averages were calculated, and movements induced by each instrument were compared using a two-way ANOVA. Also studied were the proportion of patients with occiput-C1 rotation exceeding 10, 15, or 20 degrees, and the quality of glottic visualization.

RESULTS: No significant difference was found between DL and GVL regarding average segmental spine movement at any level (P values between 0.22 and 0.70). During both techniques, motion was mainly an extension concentrated in the rostral C-spine and occurred predominantly during glottic visualization. The proportion of patients with occiput-C1 extension of more than 10, 15, or 20 degrees was not significantly different. Glottic visualization was significantly better with GVL compared with DL.

CONCLUSION: During intubation under general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and manual in-line stabilization, the use of GVL produced better glottic visualization, but did not significantly decrease movement of the nonpathologic C-spine when compared with DL.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy vs. Direct Laryngoscopy with Manual In-Line Stabilization Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, March 14, 2008; 2008(314): 1 - 1. [Full Text]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999