Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization

dc.contributor.authorAramvanitch K.
dc.contributor.authorLeela-Amornsin S.
dc.contributor.authorTienpratarn W.
dc.contributor.authorNuanprom P.
dc.contributor.authorAussavanodom S.
dc.contributor.authorYuksen C.
dc.contributor.authorBoonsri S.
dc.contributor.authorBoonjarus N.
dc.contributor.authorSanepim S.
dc.contributor.correspondenceAramvanitch K.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-14T18:15:10Z
dc.date.available2025-02-14T18:15:10Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Traumatic patients with cervical spine motion restriction have difficulty with endotracheal intubation (ETI) due to the limitations of neck movement and mouth opening. Nevertheless, the removal of the cervical collar for ETI in a prehospital setting may lead to a deterioration in neurological outcomes. This study compares the success rate of ETI utilizing a video laryngoscope (VL) on a manikin, contrasting manual in-line stabilization (MILS) without a cervical hard collar against full immobilization. Methods: A randomized, non-crossover study was conducted involving 56 paramedic students assigned by SNOSE to utilize various box sizes for VL intubation with MILS without a cervical hard collar or full immobilization technique on a manikin. The primary outcome was the intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included attempts, time for successful intubation, and Cormack-Lehane classification. Results: Fifty-six participants were evaluated; 28 were in the full immobilization group, and another 28 were in the MILS without cervical hard collar group. Baseline characteristics showed no difference between both groups. The success rate of VL intubation showed no difference between the full immobilization group and the MILS without a cervical hard collar group (28 [100%] vs 28 [100%]; 24 [85.71%] vs 27 [96.43%] on first attempt; 4 [14.29%] vs 1 [3.57%] on second attempt; p-value 0.352). Time required to perform successful intubation (median [IQR] 17.20 [12.53, 24.40] vs 17.53 [14.06, 23.73], p-value 0.694) and Cormack-Lehane classification (11 [39.29%] vs 10 [35.71%] in grade I; 16 [57.14%] vs 17 [60.71%] in grade II; 1 [3.57%] vs 1 [3.57%] in grade III, p-value 1.000) showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Conclusion: It is unnecessary to remove the cervical hard collar when performing endotracheal intubation while using a video laryngoscope.
dc.identifier.citationTherapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Vol.21 (2025) , 103-109
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/TCRM.S486978
dc.identifier.eissn1178203X
dc.identifier.issn11766336
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85217155042
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/105284
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectChemical Engineering
dc.subjectPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectSocial Sciences
dc.titleVideo Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85217155042&origin=inward
oaire.citation.endPage109
oaire.citation.startPage103
oaire.citation.titleTherapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
oaire.citation.volume21
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University

Files

Collections