AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightConclusion: GlideScope is superior to ILMA in terms of lower insertion and intubation times and lower levels of mucosal damage in cervical collar-immobilized patients.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/aim: Intubation must be rapidly performed with the utmost care in cervical trauma patients. We present the first comparison of GlideScope and an intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) regarding insertion and intubation times, intubation success rates, mucosal damage, need for optimization maneuvers, effects on hemodynamic changes, and postoperative minor complications in a simulated cervical injury with a Philadelphia cervical collar. Materials and methods: Ethics committee approval and patient consent were obtained and 94 American Society of Anesthesiology physical status I or II patients were enrolled in this study. Following standard anesthesia monitoring and induction, the Philadelphiatype cervical collar was applied and patients were subsequently intubated with ILMA or GlideScope. Results: The total intubation success rates were similar between the groups (96%). The insertion (14.9 ± 10 s vs. 21.9 ± 6.5 s, respectively; P < 0.001) and intubation (43.5 ± 13 s vs. 48.4 ± 11 s; P = 0.02) times for ILMA were longer than for GlideScope. The total intubation times for ILMA were longer than the intubation time for GlideScope (43.5 ± 13 s vs. 85.6 ± 13 s; P < 0.001). The mucosal damage was higher in the ILMA group (P = 0.04). The two airway devices increased the heart rate and mean arterial pressure after insertion compared with the postinduction values within groups. Conclusion: GlideScope is superior to ILMA in terms of lower insertion and intubation times and lower levels of mucosal damage in cervical collar-immobilized patients.