Comparison of the conventional <scp>M</scp>acintosh laryngoscope, the <scp>P</scp>entax <scp>A</scp>irwayscope, and the <scp>McG</scp>rath <scp>MAC</scp> video laryngoscope under restricted cervical motion: a manikin study

<jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>We compared the utility of the conventional <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>acintosh laryngoscope, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">P</jats:styled-content>entax <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope, and the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content> video laryngoscope under restricted cervical motion using a manikin.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We recruited 36 participants into the simulation study. The manikin's cervical motion was restricted with a cervical collar and a head immobilizer, as occurs in trauma cases. We recorded the time to intubation and the success rate of the intubations.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Data are medians and ranges. The time to intubation under normal and restricted cervical motion were 22.5 (10–78) and 23 (9–119) s with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>acintosh laryngoscope, 13.5 (5–50) and 14 (7–119) s with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope, and 13 (6–32) and 18 (7–80) s with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content> video laryngoscope. The differences in the time to intubation between normal and restricted cervical motion were significant only with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content> (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.0008). With restricted cervical motion, the times to intubation in the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope attempts were significantly shorter than those in the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>acintosh laryngoscope (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.0005) and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content> (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.0282) attempts. The success rates under normal and restricted cervical motion were 100% and 80.6% with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>acintosh laryngoscope (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.0054), 100% and 100% with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope, and 100% and 97.2% with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content>, respectively.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>In the present study, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope was the best among the three devices. However, the differences between the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">A</jats:styled-content>irway <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">S</jats:styled-content>cope and the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">McG</jats:styled-content>rath <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MAC</jats:styled-content> video laryngoscope may not be serious in a clinical situation. Data were gathered using a manikin, and further studies will be necessary.</jats:p></jats:sec>