Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background: Immobilization of the neck in cervical spine injury patients can lead to misalignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axis, thereby making intubation more difficult. The principal aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of King Vision, Truview Evo2, and McCoy with Macintosh l...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Smita Gulati, Samarendra Nath Samui, Anisha De
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2022-01-01
Series:Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.bjoaonline.com/article.asp?issn=2549-2276;year=2022;volume=6;issue=2;spage=108;epage=114;aulast=Gulati
_version_ 1811243348549173248
author Smita Gulati
Samarendra Nath Samui
Anisha De
author_facet Smita Gulati
Samarendra Nath Samui
Anisha De
author_sort Smita Gulati
collection DOAJ
description Background: Immobilization of the neck in cervical spine injury patients can lead to misalignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axis, thereby making intubation more difficult. The principal aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of King Vision, Truview Evo2, and McCoy with Macintosh laryngoscope in patients getting intubated with cervical spine immobilized using manual inline stabilization. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, controlled trial of 160 patients who were randomized to undergo surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. We equally divided the subjects into using either Macintosh, McCoy, Truview Evo2, and King Vision laryngoscopes to facilitate intubation. We evaluated the intubation difficulty using the Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS) and Cormack–Lehane grading. Results: King Vision, Truview Evo2, and McCoy reduced the IDS as compared to Macintosh (P < 0.001). King Vision showed a first-attempt success rate of 100%. Cormack and Lehane’s glottic views were best with King Vision followed by Truview Evo2 and there was much less need for external manipulation as compared to McCoy and Macintosh. Time taken for intubation was least with McCoy blade (22.9 ± 7.2 s, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of both King Vision and Truview Evo2 significantly resulted in a decreased the IDS and improved Cormack–Lehane grading as compared to Macintosh and McCoy.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T14:05:51Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b47256b9de4347bbbbd30ddb5b995777
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2549-2276
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T14:05:51Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
spelling doaj.art-b47256b9de4347bbbbd30ddb5b9957772022-12-22T03:30:04ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsBali Journal of Anesthesiology2549-22762022-01-016210811410.4103/bjoa.bjoa_191_21Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled TrialSmita GulatiSamarendra Nath SamuiAnisha DeBackground: Immobilization of the neck in cervical spine injury patients can lead to misalignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axis, thereby making intubation more difficult. The principal aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of King Vision, Truview Evo2, and McCoy with Macintosh laryngoscope in patients getting intubated with cervical spine immobilized using manual inline stabilization. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, controlled trial of 160 patients who were randomized to undergo surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. We equally divided the subjects into using either Macintosh, McCoy, Truview Evo2, and King Vision laryngoscopes to facilitate intubation. We evaluated the intubation difficulty using the Intubation Difficulty Score (IDS) and Cormack–Lehane grading. Results: King Vision, Truview Evo2, and McCoy reduced the IDS as compared to Macintosh (P < 0.001). King Vision showed a first-attempt success rate of 100%. Cormack and Lehane’s glottic views were best with King Vision followed by Truview Evo2 and there was much less need for external manipulation as compared to McCoy and Macintosh. Time taken for intubation was least with McCoy blade (22.9 ± 7.2 s, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of both King Vision and Truview Evo2 significantly resulted in a decreased the IDS and improved Cormack–Lehane grading as compared to Macintosh and McCoy.http://www.bjoaonline.com/article.asp?issn=2549-2276;year=2022;volume=6;issue=2;spage=108;epage=114;aulast=Gulatiairway managementimmobilizationlaryngoscopesspinal injurytracheal intubation
spellingShingle Smita Gulati
Samarendra Nath Samui
Anisha De
Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
airway management
immobilization
laryngoscopes
spinal injury
tracheal intubation
title Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_short Comparison of Macintosh, McCoy, Truview EVO2, and King Vision Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Immobilized Cervical Spine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_sort comparison of macintosh mccoy truview evo2 and king vision laryngoscopes for intubation in patients with immobilized cervical spine a randomized controlled trial
topic airway management
immobilization
laryngoscopes
spinal injury
tracheal intubation
url http://www.bjoaonline.com/article.asp?issn=2549-2276;year=2022;volume=6;issue=2;spage=108;epage=114;aulast=Gulati
work_keys_str_mv AT smitagulati comparisonofmacintoshmccoytruviewevo2andkingvisionlaryngoscopesforintubationinpatientswithimmobilizedcervicalspinearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT samarendranathsamui comparisonofmacintoshmccoytruviewevo2andkingvisionlaryngoscopesforintubationinpatientswithimmobilizedcervicalspinearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT anishade comparisonofmacintoshmccoytruviewevo2andkingvisionlaryngoscopesforintubationinpatientswithimmobilizedcervicalspinearandomizedcontrolledtrial