Cervical spine movements during laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Emergency Medicine Journal · 2022-10-30 · Meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Airway management is challenging in trauma patients because of the fear of worsening cervical spinal cord damage. Video-integrated and optic-integrated devices and intubation laryngeal mask airways have been proposed as alternatives to direct laryngoscopy with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). We performed a meta-analysis to clarify which devices cause less cervical movement during airway management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Embase and LILACS from inception to January 2022. We selected randomised controlled trials comparing alternative devices with the MAC for cervical movement from C0 to C5 in adult patients, evaluated by radiological examination. Additionally, cervical spine immobilisation (CSI) techniques were evaluated. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to evaluate the risk of bias, and the principles of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system to assess the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (530 patients) were included. Alternative devices caused statistically significantly less cervical movement than MAC during laryngoscopy with mean differences of -3.43 (95% CI -4.93 to -1.92) at C0-C1, -3.19 (-4.04 to -2.35) at C1-C2, -1.35 (-2.19 to -0.51) at C2-C3, and -2.61 (-3.62 to -1.60) at C3-C4; and during intubation: -3.60 (-5.08 to -2.12) at C0-C1, -2.38 (-3.17 to -1.58) at C1-C2, -1.20 (-2.09 to -0.31) at C2-C3. The Airtraq and the Intubation Laryngeal Mask Airway caused statistically significant less movement than MAC restricted to some cervical segments, as well as CSI. Heterogeneity was low to moderate in most results. The quality of the body of evidence was 'low' and 'very low'. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the MAC, alternative devices caused less movement during laryngoscopy (C0-C4) and intubation (C0-C3). Due to the high risk of bias and the very low grade of evidence of the studies, further research is necessary to clarify the benefit of each device and to determine the efficacy of cervical immobilisation during airway management.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Endotracheal intubation · Spinal motion restriction · Supraglottic airway · Video laryngoscopy
Related articles
- Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society (DAS), Association of Anaesthetists (AoA), British Society of Orthopaedic Anaesthetists (BSOA), Intensive Care Society (ICS), Neuro Anaesthesia and Critical Care Society (NACCS), Faculty of Prehospital Care and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM). (Anaesthesia, 2024)
- Comparison of video-stylet and video-laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical neck immobilisation: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. (Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2021)
- Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization. (Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2025)
- Cervical spine motion during videolaryngoscopic intubation using a Macintosh-style blade with and without the anterior piece of a cervical collar: a randomized controlled trial. (Can J Anaesth, 2025)
- Comparison of the ETView Single Lumen and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation in an airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by novice paramedics: A randomized crossover manikin trial. (Medicine (Baltimore), 2017)
- Comparison of intubation success and glottic visualization using King Vision and C-MAC videolaryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine injuries with cervical immobilization: A randomized clinical trial. (Surg Neurol Int, 2017)