Trial reportDer Anaesthesist2019
Comparison of cervical spine motion during intubation with a C‑MAC D‑Blade® and an LMA Fastrach®.
Trial report in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of sacovlm™ video laryngeal mask-guided intubation and fastrach combined with flexible bronchoscopy-guided intubation -a prospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Comparison of Videolaryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway for Tracheal Intubation with Manual-in-line Stabilization in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective randomized study compared cervical motion during intubation with a C‑MAC D‑Blade® and with a laryngeal mask airway LMA Fastrach®. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe participants in this study were 52 ASA I-III patients aged 18-70 years and assigned for elective cervical discectomy. The patients were randomly selected for intubation with a C‑MAC D‑Blade® (group V) or an LMA Fastrach® laryngeal airway (group F). Both groups received the same induction of anaesthesia. The first lateral view was X‑rayed while the head and neck were in a neutral supine position and the second exposure was taken during the passage of the endotracheal tube through the vocal cords for group V and during the advance of the endotracheal tube for group F. The occiput-C1 (C0-C1), C1-C2 and C2-5 angles were measured. The angle formed by the line between the occipital protuberance and anterior process of the foramen magnum and the line between the central point of C1 spinous process and the anterior process of the foramen magnum was defined as angle A. The differences between the angles were calculated. Overall intubation success and first-pass success (success at the first attempt) were recorded.
resultsThe change in angulations between C0-C1 during intubation was significantly lower in group F than in group V (2.78
conclusionIntubation with both a C‑MAC D‑Blade and a Fastrach LMA resulted in cervical motion but within safe ranges. Intubation with a C-mac D blade might be preferred because the Fastrach LMA may result in more failed intubation attempts in patients with cervical spine disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30627738What OpenQuestion holds
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.