Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31338524›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2019

[Conventional intubation and laryngeal tube in cervical spine instability : Changes in the width of the dural sac in unfixed human body donors].

F Weilbacher, N R E Schneider, S Liao, M Münzberg, M A Weigand, M Kreinest, E Popp

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F WeilbacherKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. frank.weilbacher@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
N R E SchneiderKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
S LiaoKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland.
M MünzbergKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland.
M A WeigandKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
M KreinestKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland.
E PoppKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEBerufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAirway management in patients with an unstable cervical spine requires a cautious approach if secondary damage is to be prevented but the question regarding the optimum method remains unresolved. The primary aim of the study was to investigate whether there were differences between intubation by conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy and placement of a laryngeal tube (LTS-D) with respect to dural sac compression on an unfixed human cadaver model with unstable injuries of the upper cervical spine. Secondary parameters that could be relevant in patients with unstable spinal injuries were also investigated. MATERIAL AND

methodsOrotracheal intubation by conventional direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and placement of a laryngeal tube (LTS-D) were performed in six fresh human cadavers. The dural sac was filled with contrast dye to allow continuous myelography by lateral fluoroscopy. Changes in the width of the dural sac at the cervical segments (C) C0/C1 and the C1/C2 levels as well as secondary parameters (angulation, distraction, intervention time) were assessed in the intact spine as well as in the presence of combined atlanto-occipital dislocation and atlanto-axial instability. The intubation methods were considered independent and examined using the Mann-Whitney U‑test.

resultsAt the C0/C1 level in the intact spine, conventional laryngoscopy caused less reduction of the width of the dural sac than placement of the LTS-D (0.33 mm vs. 0.46 mm, p = 0.035); however, in the presence of combined atlanto-occipital dislocation and atlanto-axial instability, placement of the LTS-D caused less reduction in the width of the dural sac than conventional intubation (1.18 mm vs. 0.68 mm, p = 0.005). At the C1/C2 level no differences were found with respect to changes in the width of the dural sac, neither in the intact spine nor in combined atlanto-occipital dislocation and atlanto-axial instability. Conventional intubation caused more angulation than placement of the LTS-D at both levels measured. Both methods did not cause distraction. The intervention times for placement of the laryngeal tube were shorter.

conclusionIn an unfixed human cadaver model with combined atlanto-occipital dislocation and atlanto-axial instability, placement of the LTS-D caused less reduction in the width of the dural sac than conventional intubation at the level of the craniocervical junction. The LTS-D also caused less angulation and could be placed faster. It could therefore also be advantageous over conventional intubation in living patients with an unstable cervical spine.

Indexed as

Spinal InjuriesCadaverCervical VertebraeHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyAirway managementAtlanto-axial instabilityAtlanto-occipital dislocationMyelographySpinal cord injuries

Identifiers

PMID31338524
OpenAlexW2963123929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.