Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26288267›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2015

Intubation Biomechanics: Laryngoscope Force and Cervical Spine Motion during Intubation in Cadavers-Cadavers versus Patients, the Effect of Repeated Intubations, and the Effect of Type II Odontoid Fracture on C1-C2 Motion.

Bradley J Hindman, Robert P From, Ricardo B Fontes, Vincent C Traynelis, Michael M Todd, M Bridget Zimmerman, Christian M Puttlitz, Brandon G Santoni

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Spinal movement and dural sac compression during airway management in a cadaveric model with atlanto-occipital instability.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Bradley J HindmanFrom the Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa (B.J.H., R.P.F., M.M.T.); Department of Neurosurgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois (R.B.F., V.C.T.); Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (M.B.Z.); Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (C.M.P.); and Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Tampa, Florida (B.G.S.).
Robert P From
Ricardo B Fontes
Vincent C Traynelis
Michael M Todd
M Bridget Zimmerman
Christian M Puttlitz
Brandon G Santoni

Funding

Intubation Mechanics of the Stable and Unstable Cervical SpineR01EB012048 · NIBIB · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HINDMAN, BRADLEY JAY, PUTTLITZ, CHRISTIAN · 2011 to 2014
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012048NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB012048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aims of this study are to characterize (1) the cadaver intubation biomechanics, including the effect of repeated intubations, and (2) the relation between intubation force and the motion of an injured cervical segment.

methodsFourteen cadavers were serially intubated using force-sensing Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes in random order, with simultaneous cervical spine motion recorded with lateral fluoroscopy. Motion of the C1-C2 segment was measured in the intact and injured state (type II odontoid fracture). Injured C1-C2 motion was proportionately corrected for changes in intubation forces that occurred with repeated intubations.

resultsCadaver intubation biomechanics were comparable with those of patients in all parameters other than C2-C5 extension. In cadavers, intubation force (set 2/set 1 force ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81; P = 0.002) and Oc-C5 extension (set 2 - set 1 difference = -6.1 degrees; 95% CI, -11.4 to -0.9; P = 0.025) decreased with repeated intubations. In cadavers, C1-C2 extension did not differ (1) between intact and injured states; or (2) in the injured state, between laryngoscopes (with and without force correction). With force correction, in the injured state, C1-C2 subluxation was greater with the Airtraq (mean difference 2.8 mm; 95% CI, 0.7 to 4.9 mm; P = 0.004).

conclusionsWith limitations, cadavers may be clinically relevant models of intubation biomechanics and cervical spine motion. In the setting of a type II odontoid fracture, C1-C2 motion during intubation with either the Macintosh or the Airtraq does not appear to greatly exceed physiologic values or to have a high likelihood of hyperextension or direct cord compression.

Indexed as

MotionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverCervical VertebraeFemaleHumansIntubationLaryngoscopesLaryngoscopyLarynxMaleMiddle AgedOdontoid Process

Identifiers

PMID26288267
PMCPMC4618231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.