Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
Radiographic comparison of cervical spine motion using LMA Fastrach, LMA CTrach, and the Macintosh laryngoscope
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized crossover trial comparing cervical spine motion during tracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope versus a C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope in a simulated immobilized cervical spine.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Trial
- A Comparative Study of Airway Management Efficacy and Postoperative Pharyngolaryngeal Discomfort Using SaCo Visual and WORK Laryngeal Masks in Adult General Anesthesia Laparoscopic Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed traumatic spinal cord injury: a narrative review of current evidence.Anaesthesia · 2022Review
- Effects of External Laryngeal Manipulation on Cervical Spine Motion during Videolaryngoscopic Intubation under Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim/
aimThe optimal technique for airway management in patients with cervical pathology remains unclear. Intubating laryngeal mask airway devices such as LMA CTrach and LMA Fastrach have not been compared for cervical spine (C-spine) movements in the context of cervical pathology. The present study aimed to determine upper C-spine movements by radiography during intubation with different devices as well as comparing the duration and success of intubation in cervical surgery. Materials and methods: Sixty patients scheduled for elective cervical surgery were registered in this prospective, randomized study. Patients with cervical trauma/injury, previous neck surgery, and body mass index (BMI) of >35 kg/m2 were excluded. Participants were randomized to one of the 3 groups: LMA CTrach, LMA Fastrach, or the Macintosh laryngoscope. C-spine motion was evaluated by measuring angles created by bordering vertebrae at cervical 1/2 and 2/3 (C1/2, C2/3) segments on 2 lateral cervical radiographs for each patient. Intubation time, ease of intubation, number of attempts, and success rate were also documented. Results: Demographic data were similar in all the groups. The cervical movement with LMA CTrach and LMA Fastrach compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope were similar at C1/2. However, LMA CTrach significantly reduced extension compared to LMA Fastrach and Macintosh laryngoscopes at C2/3. Duration of intubation was significantly shorter with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The rate of successful intubation was 80% with LMA Fastrach and 100% with both LMA CTrach and the Macintosh laryngoscopes. Conclusion: The LMA CTrach laryngoscopy involves less upper C-spine movement than the LMA Fastrach and does not increase the duration of the intubation period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.