Cited by 74Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsRestraint-Related Deaths

Videolaryngoscopy with glidescope reduces cervical spine movement in patients with unsecured cervical spine

Kill, Clemens, Risse, Joachim, Wallot, Pascal, Seidl, Philipp, Steinfeldt, Thorsten, Wulf, Hinnerk·2013·The Journal of Emergency Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.07.080

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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