English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

183 Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care | Vol. 3 • Issue 2 • May-Aug 2016 | ISNACC-S-38 A randomised comparative study between AirTraq and McCoy for intubation in patients with cervical spine injury Narmada Padhy, Srilata Moningi, Dilip Kumar Kulkarni, R. Gopinath Department of Anaesthesia, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India Background: Various airway devices have been used successfully for endotracheal intubation of simulated patients with cervical collar. This study was done to compare AirTraq and McCoy for intubation characteristics and haemodynamic parameters following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. Methods: After Institutional Ethical Committee approval, a prospective randomised comparative study was designed on 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients involving single level ACDF with mild to no neurological deficit. Following standard anaesthesia protocol and manual in-line stabilisation applied along with cervical collar or pin traction, all the patients were intubated either with AirTraq or McCoy. The time taken for intubation, Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS) score, comfort grading and haemodynamic parameters were noted following intubation. Statistical Analysis: The categorical data were compared using Chi‐square test and the continuous variables were compared between the groups using paired sample t-test. Repeated ANOVA was tested for haemodynamic data at each measurement time point, and Tukey post hoc was used for within the group comparisons at different timings following intubation. Results: The mean intubation time was 24.41 ± 14.8 s in AirTraq group which was statistically significant compared to McCoy group 38.96 ± 15.55 s (P = 0.001). The IDS score and comfort grading were statistically significant in Group A compared to Group M. The changes in heart rate and mean arterial pressure following intubation were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: AirTraq improves the grade of glottic visualisation with minimal assistance. It also minimised the time taken for intubation and had stable haemodynamics with increased comfort to the anaesthetist.