Comparison of a New Video Intubation Stylet and McGrath® MAC Video Laryngoscope for Intubation in an Airway Manikin with Normal Airway and Cervical Spine Immobilization Scenarios by Novice Personnel: A Randomized Crossover Study

The use of both a video laryngoscope and a video intubation stylet, compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope, is not only easier to learn but also associated with a higher success rate in performing endotracheal intubation for novice users. However, data comparing the two video devices used by novice personnel are rarely found in literature. Nondelayed intubation is an important condition to determine the prognosis in critically ill patients; hence, exploring intubation performance in various situations is of clinical significance. This study is aimed at comparing a video stylet and a video laryngoscope for intubation in an airway manikin with normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios by novice personnel. We compared the performance of intubation by novices between the Aram Video Stylet and the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope in an airway manikin. Thirty medical doctors with minimal experience of endotracheal intubation attempted intubation on a manikin five times with each device in each setting (normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios). The order of use of the devices in each scenario was randomized for each participant. In the normal airway scenario, the Aram stylet showed a significantly higher rate of successful intubation than the McGrath® (98.7% vs. 92.0%; odds ratio (95% CI): 6.4 (1.4–29.3); p = 0.006 ). The intubation time was shorter using the Aram Stylet than that using the McGrath® video laryngoscope ( p < 0.001 ). In the cervical immobilization scenario, successful endotracheal intubation was also more frequent using the Aram stylet than with the McGrath® (96.0% vs. 87.3%; odds ratio (95% CI): 3.5 (1.3–9.0); p = 0.007 ). The Aram Stylet intubation time was shorter ( p < 0.001 ). In novice personnel, endotracheal intubation appears to be more successful and faster using the Aram Video Stylet than the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope.

Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy in the Success of Intubation Performed by Novice Personnel in Patients with Cervical Immobilization: A Manikin Study

Introduction: Pre-hospital intubation is a challenging but essential intervention. During intubation, it is difficult to identify vocal cords when using a cervical collar and trauma board. Therefore, the success rate of intubation by paramedics decreases in trauma patients. Video laryngoscopy increases intubation success rate and has been recommended for difficult airways in studies. Objective: In this study, we compared the intubation success rates when using a video laryngoscope and a direct laryngoscope in a manikin with simulated cervical immobilization. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the manikin’s neck collar and spine board created a complicated airway model with cervical immobilization. Inexperienced paramedic students tried intubation with both methods, and their trial periods were recorded. Students answered a question evaluating the convenience of the procedure for both methods after the trial. Results: In this study, 83 volunteers, who were first-year and second-year paramedics, participated; 32 (38.6%) of the volunteers were first-year students, while 51 (61.4%) were second-year students. All volunteers had previous intubation experience with direct laryngoscopy, but not with video laryngoscopy. There was a statistically significant difference in the first-attempt success rates of the procedure between the groups in favor of video laryngoscope (p=0.022). Note that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of first attempt durations (p=0.337). Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy in airway management can increase the success rate of first-attempt intubation by inexperienced pre-hospital healthcare personnel.

Comparison of the efficacy of three cervical collars in restricting cervical range of motion: A randomized study

Background: The cervical collar has been used as a common device for the initial stabilization of the cervical spine. Although many cervical collars are commercially available, there is no consensus on which offers the greatest protection, with studies showing considerable variations in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. The use of the XCollar (Emegear, Carpinteria, CA) has been known to decrease the risk of spinal cord injury by minimizing potential cervical spinal distraction. We compared XCollar with two other cervical collars commonly used for adult patients with cervical spine injury to evaluate the difference in effectiveness between the three cervical collars to restrict cervical range of motion. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the difference between the three cervical collars in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. Method: A total of 30 healthy university students aged 21–25 years participated in this study. Participants with any cervical disease and symptoms were excluded. Three cervical collars were tested: Philadelphia® Collar, Stifneck® Select™ Collar, and XCollar. A digital camera and an image-analysis technique were used to evaluate cervical range of motion during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. Cervical range of motion was evaluated in both the unbraced and braced condition. Results: XCollar permitted less than a mean of 10° of movement during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. This was less than the movement permitted by the other two cervical collars. Conclusion: XCollar presented superior cervical immobilization compared to the other two commonly used cervical collars in this study. Thus, when cervical collar is considered for an adult patient with cervical spine injury, XCollar might be one of the considerate options as a cervical immobilization device.