Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28217398›Full record

ArticleSurgical neurology international2017

Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial.

Dhanyasi Shravanalakshmi, Prasanna U Bidkar, K Narmadalakshmi, Suman Lata, Sandeep K Mishra, S Adinarayanan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical neurology international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03378154 (Intubation Success and Glottis Visualization With King Vision Video Laryngoscope as Compared to Conventional Laryngoscopes in Children < 1 Years), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT03378154 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Intubation Success and Glottis Visualization With King Vision Video Laryngoscope as Compared to Conventional Laryngoscopes in Children < 1 Years: A Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorJawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & ResearchRan2018 to 2019Enrolled78ConditionsOrotracheal Intubation in Infants Requiring General Anaesthesia for SurgeryArmsOrotracheal intubation in infants with Macintosh, Orotracheal intubation in infants with King vision
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Video Laryngoscopic Intubation Using the King VisionDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dhanyasi ShravanalakshmiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
Prasanna U BidkarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
K NarmadalakshmiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
Suman LataDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
Sandeep K MishraDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
S AdinarayananDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · INWinthrop-University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlottic visualization can be difficult with cervical immobilization in patients with cervical spine injury. Indirect laryngoscopes may provide better glottic visualization in these groups of patients. Hence, we compared King Vision videolaryngoscope, C-MAC videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in patients with proven/suspected cervical spine injury.

methodsAfter standard induction of anesthesia, 135 patients were randomized into three groups: group C (conventional C-MAC videolaryngoscope), group K (King Vision videolaryngoscope), and group D (D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscope). Cervical immobilization was maintained with Manual in line stabilization with anterior part of cervical collar removed. First pass intubation success, time for intubation, and glottic visualization (Cormack - Lehane grade and percentage of glottic opening) were noted. Intubation difficulty score (IDS) was used for grading difficulty of intubation. Five-point Likert scale was used for ease of insertion of laryngoscope.

resultsFirst attempt success rate were 100% (45/45), 93.3% (42/45), and 95.6% (43/45) in patients using conventional C-MAC, King Vision, and D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscopes, respectively. Time for intubation in seconds was significantly faster with conventional C-MAC videolaryngoscope (23.3 ± 4.7) compared to D blade C-MAC videolaryngoscope (26.7 ± 7.1), whereas conventional C-MAC and King Vision were comparable (24.9 ± 7.2). Good grade glottic visualization was obtained with all the three videolaryngoscopes.

conclusionAll the videolaryngoscopes provided good glottic visualization and first attempt success rate. Conventional C-MAC insertion was significantly easier. We conclude that all the three videolaryngoscopes can be used effectively in patients with cervical spine injury.

Indexed as

Cervical spine immobilizationglottic visualizationvideolaryngoscopes

Identifiers

PMID28217398
PMCPMC5309444
OpenAlexW2586493056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.