Trial reportMedicine2020
Two head positions for orotracheal intubation with the trachway videolight intubating stylet with manual in-line stabilization: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the McGRATHMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- The Use of the Shikani Video-Assisted Intubating Stylet Technique in Patients with Restricted Neck Mobility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optical Devices in Tracheal Intubation-State of the Art in 2020.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Success Rate of Endotracheal Intubation Using Inline Stabilization with and without Cervical Hard Collar; a Comparative Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Trachway Videolight Intubating Stylet is a video-assisted system with a rigid but malleable intubating stylet that facilitates endotracheal intubation. Minimizing cervical spine movement with manual in-line stabilization is essential for patients with cervical spine injuries such as multiple trauma. However, the intubation time of the Trachway Videolight Intubating Stylet and complications associated with intubation in patients with manual in-line stabilization in the neutral-head and head-lift positions remain unclear.
methodsPatients (20-80 years old) who were scheduled to undergo surgery that required general anesthesia with tracheal intubation were randomly allocated to either a neutral-head (n = 62) or a head-lift position (n = 62) group. Manual in-line stabilization was performed to limit cervical spine mobility. We aimed to evaluate orotracheal intubation time and success rate in these 2 positions with the Trachway Videolight Intubating Stylet.
resultsIntubation was faster in the head-lift than in the neutral-head position (20 ± 10 and 25 ± 13 seconds, respectively, P = .000); intubation was equally successful in the 2 positions (96.8% vs 96.8%). Responses to intubation did not differ between positions (heart rate, P = .142; visual analog scale scores for throat soreness, P = .54). The only significant predictor of intubation time was the body mass index in the head-lift position group (P = .005).
conclusionsIntubation using the Trachway Videolight Intubating Stylet with manual in-line stabilization is faster in the head-lift position, and therefore preferable. However, if the head-lift position is not suitable, the neutral-head position is a sensible alternative, with comparable intubation success rate, heart rate change, and postoperative throat soreness.
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.