Background: During videolaryngoscopic intubation, direct epiglottis elevation provides a higher percentage of glottic opening score than indirect epiglottis elevation. In this randomized controlled trial, we compared cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation under manual in-line stabilization between the two glottis exposure methods.
Methods: Videolaryngoscopic intubation under manual in-line stabilization was performed using C-MAC® D-blade: direct (n = 51) and indirect (n = 51) epiglottis elevation groups. The percentage of glottic opening score was set equally at 50% during videolaryngoscopic intubation in both groups. The primary outcome measure was cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation at the occiput-C1, C1-C2, and C2-C5. The secondary outcome measures included intubation performance (intubation success rate and intubation time).
Results: Cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation was significantly smaller at the occiput-C1 in the direct epiglottis elevation group than in the indirect epiglottis elevation group (mean [standard deviation] 3.9 [4.0] vs. 5.8 [3.4] °, P = 0.011), whereas it was not significantly different at the C1-C2 and C2-C5 between the two groups. All intubations were successful on the first attempt, achieving a percentage of glottic opening score of 50% in both groups. Intubation time was longer in the direct epiglottis elevation group (median [interquartile range] 29.0 [24.0-35.0] vs. 22.0 [18.0-27.0] s, P < 0.001).
Conclusions: When performing videolaryngoscopic intubation under manual in-line stabilization, direct epiglottis elevation can be more beneficial than indirect epiglottis elevation in reducing cervical spine movement during videolaryngoscopic intubation at the occiput-C1.
Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service (number: KCT0006239, date: 10/06/2021).
Keywords: Cervical spine movement; Direct epiglottis elevation; Glottis exposure method; Indirect epiglottis elevation; Videolaryngoscopic intubation.
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.