ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A comparative study of the C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope and McCoy laryngoscope for oro-tracheal intubation with manual in-line stabilization of neck in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of AirAngel® vs. Storz® videolaryngoscope and Macintosh® laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation training: prospective randomized crossover study.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Comparison of the standard McCoy laryngoscope and video-assisted McCoy laryngoscope for laryngoscopy and intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Comparison of BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Airway management in cervical spine injury patients requires manual in-line stabilization (MILS) of the neck to avoid exacerbation of cord injury, which impedes visualization of glottis during laryngoscopy. Specially designed blades such as McCoy and C-MAC D-blades can improve laryngoscopic view in such patients. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of C-MAC D-blades and the McCoy laryngoscope for oro-tracheal intubation using MILS in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Material and Methods: This randomized, prospective study was performed in 60 adult patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I-III, either sex, 18 to 60 years of age undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. Patients were randomly categorized into two groups, group D and group M. Intubation was performed using a C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope in group D and a McCoy laryngoscope in group M using MILS. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score, laryngoscopy and intubation times, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score, Cormack Lehane (CL) grading with and without external laryngeal pressure (ELP), need for bougie or change of blade or operator, and change in hemodynamics following intubation were recorded. Results: Group D showed lower mean IDS scores than group M ( Conclusion: A C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscope provides better and rapid visualization of glottis with less intubation difficulties than a McCoy laryngoscope during intubation using MILS in patients with cervical spine injury.
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.