Comparison of the use of McCoy and TruView EVO2 laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization

Jiju Joseph, Trevor Sequeira, Madhusudan Upadya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: The cervical spine has to be stabilized in patients with suspected cervical spine injury during laryngoscopy and intubation by manual in-line axial stabilization. This has the propensity to increase the difficulty of intubation. An attempt has been made to compare TruView EVO2 and McCoy with cervical spine immobilization, which will aid the clinician in choosing an appropriate device for securing the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) in the clinical scenario of trauma. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. Settings and design: K. M. C. Hospital, Mangalore, This was a randomized control clinical trial. Methods: Sixty adult patients of either sex of ASA physical status 1 and 2 who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were studied. Comparison of intubation difficulty score (IDS), hemodynamic response, Cormack and Lehane grade, duration of the tracheal intubation and rate of successful placement of the ETT in the trachea between TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes was performed. Results: The results demonstrated that TruView has a statistically significant less IDS of 0.33 compared with an IDS of 1.2 for McCoy. TruView also had a better Cormack and Lehane glottic view (CL 1 of 77% versus 40%) and less hemodynamic response. Conclusions: The TruView blade is a useful option for tracheal intubation in patients with suspected cervical spine injury.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)248-253
Number of pages6
JournalSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-07-2012

Fingerprint

Laryngoscopes
Intubation
Immobilization
Spine
Wounds and Injuries
Hemodynamics
Laryngoscopy
Intratracheal Intubation
Trachea
Tongue
General Anesthesia
Neck
Randomized Controlled Trials
Equipment and Supplies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{6fef6ffa47504520baf7a2b19025b467,
title = "Comparison of the use of McCoy and TruView EVO2 laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization",
abstract = "Context: The cervical spine has to be stabilized in patients with suspected cervical spine injury during laryngoscopy and intubation by manual in-line axial stabilization. This has the propensity to increase the difficulty of intubation. An attempt has been made to compare TruView EVO2 and McCoy with cervical spine immobilization, which will aid the clinician in choosing an appropriate device for securing the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) in the clinical scenario of trauma. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. Settings and design: K. M. C. Hospital, Mangalore, This was a randomized control clinical trial. Methods: Sixty adult patients of either sex of ASA physical status 1 and 2 who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were studied. Comparison of intubation difficulty score (IDS), hemodynamic response, Cormack and Lehane grade, duration of the tracheal intubation and rate of successful placement of the ETT in the trachea between TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes was performed. Results: The results demonstrated that TruView has a statistically significant less IDS of 0.33 compared with an IDS of 1.2 for McCoy. TruView also had a better Cormack and Lehane glottic view (CL 1 of 77{\%} versus 40{\%}) and less hemodynamic response. Conclusions: The TruView blade is a useful option for tracheal intubation in patients with suspected cervical spine injury.",
author = "Jiju Joseph and Trevor Sequeira and Madhusudan Upadya",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/1658-354X.101216",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "248--253",
journal = "Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia",
issn = "1658-354X",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of the use of McCoy and TruView EVO2 laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization. / Joseph, Jiju; Sequeira, Trevor; Upadya, Madhusudan.

In: Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 6, No. 3, 01.07.2012, p. 248-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the use of McCoy and TruView EVO2 laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization

AU - Joseph, Jiju

AU - Sequeira, Trevor

AU - Upadya, Madhusudan

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Context: The cervical spine has to be stabilized in patients with suspected cervical spine injury during laryngoscopy and intubation by manual in-line axial stabilization. This has the propensity to increase the difficulty of intubation. An attempt has been made to compare TruView EVO2 and McCoy with cervical spine immobilization, which will aid the clinician in choosing an appropriate device for securing the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) in the clinical scenario of trauma. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. Settings and design: K. M. C. Hospital, Mangalore, This was a randomized control clinical trial. Methods: Sixty adult patients of either sex of ASA physical status 1 and 2 who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were studied. Comparison of intubation difficulty score (IDS), hemodynamic response, Cormack and Lehane grade, duration of the tracheal intubation and rate of successful placement of the ETT in the trachea between TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes was performed. Results: The results demonstrated that TruView has a statistically significant less IDS of 0.33 compared with an IDS of 1.2 for McCoy. TruView also had a better Cormack and Lehane glottic view (CL 1 of 77% versus 40%) and less hemodynamic response. Conclusions: The TruView blade is a useful option for tracheal intubation in patients with suspected cervical spine injury.

AB - Context: The cervical spine has to be stabilized in patients with suspected cervical spine injury during laryngoscopy and intubation by manual in-line axial stabilization. This has the propensity to increase the difficulty of intubation. An attempt has been made to compare TruView EVO2 and McCoy with cervical spine immobilization, which will aid the clinician in choosing an appropriate device for securing the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) in the clinical scenario of trauma. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes when performing tracheal intubation in patients with neck immobilization using manual in-line axial cervical spine stabilization. Settings and design: K. M. C. Hospital, Mangalore, This was a randomized control clinical trial. Methods: Sixty adult patients of either sex of ASA physical status 1 and 2 who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were studied. Comparison of intubation difficulty score (IDS), hemodynamic response, Cormack and Lehane grade, duration of the tracheal intubation and rate of successful placement of the ETT in the trachea between TruView EVO2 and McCoy laryngoscopes was performed. Results: The results demonstrated that TruView has a statistically significant less IDS of 0.33 compared with an IDS of 1.2 for McCoy. TruView also had a better Cormack and Lehane glottic view (CL 1 of 77% versus 40%) and less hemodynamic response. Conclusions: The TruView blade is a useful option for tracheal intubation in patients with suspected cervical spine injury.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867285954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867285954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/1658-354X.101216

DO - 10.4103/1658-354X.101216

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 248

EP - 253

JO - Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

JF - Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

SN - 1658-354X

IS - 3

ER -