Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 921  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 544-550

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

1 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Neurosurgery, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vanita Ahuja
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh -160 047
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_3_19

Rights and Permissions

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, 54patients 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. Chisquare 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.

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
    PDF Downloaded183    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal