ArticleSurgical neurology international2020
Comparison of TruView and King Vision video laryngoscopes in subaxial cervical spine injury: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAirway management with cervical spine immobilization poses a particular challenge for intubation in the absence of neck extension and risks neurological damage in cases of unstable cervical spine injuries. Here, with manual inline stabilization (MILS) in patients with cervical spine injuries, we compared the safety/efficacy of intubation utilizing the TruView versus King Vision video laryngoscopes.
methodsThis prospective, single-blind, comparative study was conducted over a 3-year period. The study population included 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III patients, aged 18-65 years, who underwent subaxial cervical spine surgery utilizing two intubation techniques; TruView (TV) versus King Vision (KV). For both groups, relative intubation difficulty scores (IDS), total duration of intubation, hemodynamic changes, and other complications (e.g., soft-tissue injury and neurological deterioration) were recorded.
resultsWith MILS, patients in the KV group had statistically significant lower IDS (0.70 ± 1.02) and significantly shorter duration of intubation as compared to the TV group (1.67 ± 1.27) with MILS (
conclusionKing Vision has several advantages over TruView for intubating patients who have sustained cervical spine trauma. Nevertheless, both laryngoscopes afford comparable glottic views and safety profiles with similar alterations in hemodynamics.
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.