Cited by 401Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques

Airway management in adults after cervical spine trauma

Crosby, Edward T., Warltier, David C.·2006·Anesthesiology

Abstract

Cervical spinal injury occurs in 2% of victims of blunt trauma; the incidence is increased if the Glasgow Coma Scale score is less than 8 or if there is a focal neurologic deficit. Immobilization of the spine after trauma is advocated as a standard of care. A three-view x-ray series supplemented with computed tomography imaging is an effective imaging strategy to rule out cervical spinal injury. Secondary neurologic injury occurs in 2-10% of patients after cervical spinal injury; it seems to be an inevitable consequence of the primary injury in a subpopulation of patients. All airway interventions cause spinal movement; immobilization may have a modest effect in limiting spinal movement during airway maneuvers. Many anesthesiologists state a preference for the fiberoptic bronchoscope to facilitate airway management, although there is considerable, favorable experience with the direct laryngoscope in cervical spinal injury patients. There are no outcome data that would support a recommendation for a particular practice option for airway management; a number of options seem appropriate and acceptable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000542-200606000-00026

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?

  • Even in patients with known cervical spine injuries, secondary neurologic deterioration is rare, with a reported incidence of 0.03%.

    “even in patients with known cervical spine injuries, secondary neurologic deterioration is rare, with a reported incidence of 0.03%.33,[37][38][39]”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Literature comparing intubation devices in c-spine immobilized patients has yielded inconsistent findings, and no consensus as to the optimal approach.

    “Literature comparing intubation devices in c-spine immobilized patients has yielded inconsistent findings, and no consensus as to the optimal approach.38,44,45,48,49”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crosby, E. T., & Warltier, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2006-06-01
Volume
104
Issue
6
Pages
1293-1318
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128175456
Cited by
401
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 24
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Keywords
airway management, cervical spine injury, spinal immobilization, fiberoptic intubation, direct laryngoscopy, blunt trauma, anesthetic management
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cervical Vertebrae, Fiber Optic Technology, Humans, Immobilization, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Movement, Spinal Cord Injuries, Spinal Injuries, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Wounds, Nonpenetrating, Laryngeal Masks, 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