MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Journal Article

Comparison of Laryngoscopic Views between C-MAC™ and Conventional Laryngoscopy in Patients with Multiple Preoperative Prognostic Criteria of Difficult Intubation. An Observational Cross-Sectional Study

2019
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background and Objectives: Video laryngoscopy has been proven useful under difficult airway scenarios, but it is unclear whether anticipated improvement of visualization is related to specific difficult intubation prognostic factors. The present study evaluated the change in laryngoscopic view between conventional and C-MAC® laryngoscopy and the presence of multiple difficult intubation risk factors. Materials and Methods: Patients scheduled for elective surgery with >2 difficult intubation factors, (Mallampati, thyromental distance (TMD), interinscisor gap, buck teeth, upper lip bite test, cervical motility, body mass index (BMI)) were eligible. Patients underwent direct laryngoscopy (DL) followed by C-MAC™ laryngoscopy (VL) and intubation. Change of view between DL and VL, time for best view, intubation difficulty scale (IDS) and correlation between prognostic factors, laryngoscopic view improvement, and IDS were measured. Results: One-hundred and seventy-six patients completed the study. VL lead to fewer Cormarck–Lehane (C/L) III-IV, compared to DL (13.6% versus 54.6%, p < 0.001). The time to best view was also shorter (VL: 10.82 s, DL: 12.08 s, p = 0.19). Mallampati III-IV and TMD ≤ 6 cm were related to improvement of C/L between DL and VL. Logistic regression showed these two factors to be a significant risk factor of the glottis view change (p = 0.006, AUC-ROC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47–0.66). 175/176 patients were intubated with VL. 108/176 were graded as 0 < IDS ≤ 5 and 12/176 as IDS > 5. IDS was only correlated to the VL view (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: VL improved laryngoscopic view in patients with multiple factors of difficult intubation. Mallampati and TMD were related to the improved view. However, intubation difficulty was only related to the VL view and not to prognostic factors.