Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization.
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management · 2025-01-01 · Randomised trial
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Endotracheal intubation · Spinal motion restriction · Students · Video laryngoscopy
Related articles
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Cervical spine movements during laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Emerg Med J, 2023)
- Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion. (Arch Acad Emerg Med, 2025)