Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 65  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 58  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 269-274

Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A comparison of McGrath ® video laryngoscope and Truview EVO2 ® laryngoscope


1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Max Hospital, Pitampura Branch, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ruchi Bhola
712, A/7 Ground Floor, Govind Puri, New Delhi - 110 019
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.135035

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Literature suggests that glottic view is better when using McGrath® Video laryngoscope and Truview® in comparison with McIntosh blade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of McGrath Video laryngoscope in comparison with Truview laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated cervical spine injury using manual in-line stabilisation. Methods: This prospective randomised study was undertaken in operation theatre of a tertiary referral centre after approval from the Institutional Review Board. A total of 100 consenting patients presenting for elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to undergo intubation using McGrath® Video laryngoscope (n = 50) or Truview® (n = 50) laryngoscope. In all patients, we applied manual-in-line stabilisation of the cervical spine throughout the airway management. Statistical testing was conducted with the statistical package for the social science system version SPSS 17.0. Demographic data, airway assessment and haemodynamics were compared using the Chi-square test. A P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The time to successful intubation was less with McGrath video laryngoscope when compared to Truview (30.02 s vs. 38.72 s). However, there was no significant difference between laryngoscopic views obtained in both groups. The number of second intubation attempts required and incidence of complications were negligible with both devices. Success rate of intubation with both devices was 100%. Intubation with McGrath Video laryngoscope caused lesser alterations in haemodynamics. Conclusions: Both laryngoscopes are reliable in case of simulated cervical spine injury using manual-in-line stabilisation with 100% success rate and good glottic view.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2837    
    Printed33    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded622    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal