Craniocervical Motion during Direct Laryngoscopy and Orotracheal Intubation with the Macintosh and Miller Blades: An In VivoCinefluoroscopic Study
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have characterized segmental craniocervical motion that occurs during direct laryngoscopy and intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade. Comparable studies with the Miller blade have not been performed. The aim of this study was to compare maximal segmental craniocervical motion occurring during direct laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation with Macintosh and Miller blades. Methods: Eleven anesthetized and pharmacologically paralyzed patients underwent two sequential orotracheal intubations, one with a Macintosh blade and another with a Miller in random order. During each intubation, segmental craniocervical motion from the occiput to the fifth cervical vertebra (C5) was recorded using continuous lateral cinefluoroscopy. Single-frame images corresponding to the point of maximal cervical motion for both blade types were compared with a preintubation image. Using image analysis software, angular change in the sagittal plane at each of five intervertebral segments was compared between the Macintosh and Miller blades. Results: Extension at occiput-C1 was greater with the Macintosh blade compared with the Miller (12.1 degrees +/- 4.9 degrees vs. 9.5 degrees +/- 3.8 degrees, respectively; mean difference = 2.7 degrees +/- 3.0 degrees; P = 0.012). Total craniocervical extension (occiput-C5) was also greater with the Macintosh blade compared with the Miller (28.1 degrees +/- 9.5 degrees vs. 23.2 degrees +/- 8.4 degrees, respectively; mean difference = 4.8 degrees +/- 4.4 degrees; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Compared with the Macintosh, the Miller blade was associated with a statistically significant, but quantitatively small, decrease in cervical extension. This difference is likely too small to be important in routine practice.
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?
Application of MILS results in the need for an increased applied force during laryngoscopy, which paradoxically may lead to more movement during intubation than occurs without MILS.
“Another theoretic concern is that application of MILS results in the need for an increased applied force during laryngoscopy, which paradoxically may lead to more movement during intubation than occurs without MILS.40,41”
From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [41]
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
- LeGrand, S. A., Hindman, B. J., Dexter, F., Weeks, J. B., & Todd, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Professor and Vice-Chair (Faculty Development).
- Professor.
- Research Assistant.
- University of Iowa (US)
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2007-12-01
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 884-891
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124255444
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCLA - Biblioteca de Ciencias de la Salud (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Tracheal and airway disorders
- Keywords
- orotracheal intubation, cervical extension, cinefluoroscopy, airway management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cervical Vertebrae, Cineradiography, Female, Head, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Male, Middle Aged, Motion
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