A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, ISSN: 2231-2730, Vol: 38, Issue: 3, Page: 464-468
2022
- 6Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef2
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Article Description
Background and Aims: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage a comparative evaluation of C-MAC with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation. Material and Methods: 150 neonates were randomized to undergo intubation with either the C-MAC VL (n = 75) or the Miller laryngoscope (n = 75) performed by an experienced anesthesiologist in a tertiary care perioperative setting. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO), time to best glottic view (TTBGV), time to intubation (TTI), number of attempts, optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM) employed, and the complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results: C-MAC group demonstrated a significantly higher POGO, compared to the Miller group (88 ± 26.7%;76.8 ± 32.1%, respectively, P = 0.022). TTBGV was significantly lower in the C-MAC (7.7 ± 0.1s) group as opposed to the Miller group (11.3 ± 1.1s). The C-MAC group displayed higher TTI values compared to the Miller group (25.4 ± 1.6s; 19.7 ± 1.2s, respectively, P < 0.01).The first-attempt intubation success rate and the number of attempts were comparable in both the groups. OELM was required in 24% of the patients in the Miller group as opposed to 10.7% in the C-MAC group (P = 0.031).Higher patient percentage in the C-MAC group required the need of stylet for assisting a successful intubation, although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Despite an improved view of the glottis, the TTI was higher for C-MAC compared to direct laryngoscopy with a comparable first-attempt success rate in the two techniques.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85142630401&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_422_20; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36505196; https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_422_20; https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_422_20; https://journals.lww.com/joacp/Fulltext/2022/07000/A_randomized_comparative_evaluation_of_C_MAC.18.aspx
Medknow
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know