Cited by 39Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesTracheal and airway disorders

Management of the airway in multitrauma

Dupanovic, Mirsad, Fox, Heather, Kovac, Anthony·2010·Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

Abstract

Purpose of review The primary purpose of this article is to highlight the latest airway research in multitrauma. Recent findings Management of the airway in multitrauma patients is a critical resuscitation task. Prehospital airway management is difficult with a high risk of failure, complications, or both. In-hospital performed conventional oral intubation with manual in-line stabilization, cricoid pressure, and a backup plan for a surgical airway is still the most efficient and effective approach for early airway control in multitrauma patients. Selective utilization of airway maintenance, instead of ultimate airway control in the field, has been suggested as a primary prehospital strategy. Properties of videolaryngoscopes complement standard laryngoscopes. When compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope, the Airtraq and Airwayscope diminish cervical spine motion during elective orotracheal intubation. Penetrating neck injuries are the most frequent indication for awake intubation, whereas patients with maxillofacial injuries have the highest rate of initial surgical airway. Summary Risks and benefits of ultimate prehospital airway control is a controversial topic. Utilization of videolaryngoscopes in multitrauma remains open for research. Standardization of training requirements, equipment, and development of prehospital and in-hospital airway algorithms are needed to improve outcomes. Rational utilization of available airway devices, development of new devices, or both may hel…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aco.0b013e3283360b4f

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?

  • The incidence of c-spine injuries is approximately 2% in the general trauma population.

    “the incidence of c-spine injuries is relatively low (occurring in approximately 2% in the general trauma population”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [31]

  • The incidence of c-spine injuries is 6%-8% in patients with head and facial trauma.

    “and 6%-8% in patients with head and facial trauma)”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [31]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dupanovic, M., Fox, H., & Kovac, A.
Affiliations
University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology
Published
2010-04
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
276-282
ISSN
0952-7907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081896064
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology (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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Tracheal and airway disorders
Keywords
airway management, polytrauma, orotracheal intubation, video laryngoscopy, Airtraq, cricoid pressure, manual in-line stabilization, surgical airway, penetrating neck injury, maxillofacial trauma, cervical spine mobility, airway devices
MeSH terms
Emergency Medical Services, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Laryngoscopy, Multiple Trauma, Oxygen Inhalation Therapy, Pneumonia, Aspiration, Respiratory System, Resuscitation, Spinal Injuries, 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