Users Online: 806 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 

RSACP wishes to inform that it shall be discontinuing the dispatch of print copy of JOACP to it's Life members. The print copy of JOACP will be posted only to those life members who send us a written confirmation for continuation of print copy.
Kindly email your affirmation for print copies to [email protected] preferably by 30th June 2019.

Year : 2013  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 308-312

Assessment of cervical spine movement during laryngoscopy with Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes

1 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Neerja Bhardwaj
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160 012
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.117053

Rights and Permissions

Background: Truview laryngoscope provides an indirect view of the glottis and will cause less cervical spine movement since a ventral lifting force will not be required to visualize the glottis compared to Macintosh laryngoscope. Materials and Methods: A randomized crossover study to assess the degree of movement of cervical spine during endotracheal intubation with Truview laryngoscope was conducted in 25 adult ASA-I patients. After a standard anesthetic technique laryngoscopy was performed twice in each patient using in turn both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes. A baseline radiograph with the head and neck in a neutral position was followed by a second radiograph taken during each laryngoscopy. An experienced radiologist analyzed and measured the cervical movement. Results: Significant cervical spine movement occurred at all segments when compared to the baseline with both the Macintosh and Truview laryngoscopes (P < 0.001). However, the movement was significantly less with Truview compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope at C 0 -C 1 (21%; P = 0.005) and C 1 -C 2 levels (32%; P = 0.009). The atlantooccipital distance (AOD) traversed while using Truview laryngoscope was significantly less than with Macintosh blade (26%; P = 0.001). Truview blade produced a better laryngoscopic view (P = 0.005) than Macintosh blade, but had a longer time to laryngoscopy (P = 0.04). Conclusion: Truview laryngoscope produced a better laryngoscopic view of glottis as compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy. It also produced significantly less cervical spine movement at C 0 -C 1 and C 1 -C 2 levels than with Macintosh laryngoscope in patients without cervical spine injury and without manual in-line stabilization (MILS). Further studies are warranted with Truview laryngoscope using MILS.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1117    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal