Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2020
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.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Randomized Trial on Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion During Tracheal Intubation Using Direct Laryngoscope Versus C-MAC Videolaryngoscope in Simulated Immobilized Cervical Spine
Hyperangulated Versus Standard Geometry Laryngoscope Blade Trial
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- The C-MAC video laryngoscope helps presbyopic anesthetists to overcome difficulty in neonatal and infantile intubation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Cervical spine motion during videolaryngoscopic intubation using a Macintosh-style blade with and without the anterior piece of a cervical collar: a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Trial
- A novel technique of handling the blade for videolaryngoscopy intubation in patients with a semi-rigid neck collar: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Direct versus indirect epiglottis elevation in cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation under manual in-line stabilization: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Seeing Beyond the Human Eye: The Video Laryngoscope as the Anesthesiologist's Backup Camera.Cureus · 2025Article
- Perioperative Management of the Geriatric Trauma Patient.Current anesthesiology reports · 2025Article
- An Overview of Adult Acute Traumatic Neurologic Injury for the Anesthesiologist:Current anesthesiology reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Structured Routine Use of Styletubation for Oro-Tracheal Intubation in Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgeries-A Case Series Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Anesthetic management of the traumatic brain injury patients undergoing non-neurosurgery.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023Review
- The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on videolaryngoscopy: a cross-sectional before-and-after survey.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2023Article
- Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed traumatic spinal cord injury: a narrative review of current evidence.Anaesthesia · 2022Review
- The Use of the Shikani Video-Assisted Intubating Stylet Technique in Patients with Restricted Neck Mobility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Split Type Postman videolaryngoscope: The newer device versus the standard Macintosh laryngoscope in simulated difficult airway - A new hope for difficult intubation scenarios.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- 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
- Asystole during laryngoscopy with a videolaryngoscope in a patient with an anticipated difficult airway: A case report.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaintaining cervical immobilization is essential during tracheal intubation in patients with unstable cervical spines. When using the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation in patients with cervical immobilization, substantial neck extension is required for visualization of the glottis. However, the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope may require less neck extension due to its acute angulation. We hypothesized that C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscopic intubation would result in less cervical spine movement than Macintosh laryngoscopic intubation. We compared the effects of C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscopic intubation and Macintosh laryngoscopic intubation in terms of cervical spine motion during intubation in patients with simulated cervical immobilization.
methodsIn this randomized crossover study, the cervical spine angle was measured at the occiput-C1, C1-C2, and C2-C5 segments before and during tracheal intubation with either a C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope in 20 patients, with application of a neck collar for simulated cervical immobilization. Cervical spine motion was defined as the change in angle measured before and during tracheal intubation.
resultsThe cervical spine motion at the occiput-C1 segment was measured at 12.1 ± 4.2° and 6.8 ± 5.0° during Macintosh laryngoscopic and C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscopic intubation, respectively, corresponding to a 44% reduction in cervical spine motion when using the latter device (mean difference, - 5.3; 98.33% CI: - 8.8 to - 1.8; p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two intubation devices at the C1-C2 segment (- 0.6; 98.33% CI: - 3.4 to 2.2; p = 0.639) or C2-C5 segment (0.2; 98.33% CI: - 6.0 to 6.4; p = 0.929).
conclusionsThe C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope causes less upper cervical spine motion than the Macintosh laryngoscope during tracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical immobilization.
trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 26, 2018 ( NCT03567902 ).
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.