Videolaryngoscopy with glidescope reduces cervical spine movement in patients with unsecured cervical spine
Abstract
Background Unconscious patients with severe trauma often require urgent endotracheal intubation. In trauma victims with possible cervical spine injury, any movement of the head and neck should be avoided. Study objectives We investigated the effect of GlideScope videolaryngoscopy on cervical spine movement compared with conventional laryngoscopy in anesthetized patients with unsecured cervical spines. Methods Sixty patients scheduled for elective surgery with general anesthesia and without anticipated airway problems were enrolled in the study after ethics committee approval and written informed consent. Intubation was performed with videolaryngoscopy (GlideScope(®), Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA) or conventional laryngoscopy (MacIntosh). Using video motion analysis with a lateral view, the maximum extension angle α was measured with reference to anatomical points (baseline and line drawn from processus mastoideus to os frontale [glabella]). Values were analyzed using Mann Whitney U-tests. Results The deviation of α was a median 11.8° in the videolaryngoscope group and 14.3° in the conventional group (p = 0.045), with a maximum of 19.2° (videolaryngoscopy) vs. 29.3° (conventional). Intubation by physicians with some experience in videolaryngoscopy was associated with a reduced angle deviation (α = 10.3°) compared to inexperienced physicians (12.8°, p = 0.019). Intubation time was a median 24 s (min/max 12/75 s) in the MacIntosh group and 53 s (min/max 28/210 s) in the GlideScope…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is unclear whether spinal movement during airway manipulation results in any important differences in clinical outcomes.
“it is unclear whether or not this results in any important differences in clinical outcomes.34”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [34]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kovacs, G., & Sowers, N. (2018) · Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.emc.2017.08.006 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kill, C., Risse, J., Wallot, P., Seidl, P., Steinfeldt, T., & Wulf, H.
- Affiliations
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Kill, Clemens
- Venue
- The Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 750-756
- ISSN
- 0736-4679 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082583508
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 9.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Restraint-Related Deaths
- Keywords
- video laryngoscopy, GlideScope, cervical spine movement, emergency intubation, cervical spine injury, laryngoscopy, intubation time, video-based motion analysis, head and neck immobilization
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cervical Vertebrae, Female, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Video Recording, Elective Surgical Procedures, Laryngoscopes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review