Skip to content

Randomized Comparative Study of CMAC D blade versus Glidescope in Simulated Difficult intubations, Using manual inline cervical stabilization on patients with no difficult airway predictors

Randomized Comparative Study of CMAC D blade versus Glidescope in Simulated Difficult intubations, Using manual inline cervical stabilization on patients with no difficult airway predictors

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12616001298404
Enrollment
60
Registered
2016-09-15
Start date
2016-12-04
Completion date
2018-09-23
Last updated
2020-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

he CMAC D blades and Glidescope are essentially meant for difficult intubations. In this present study we are comparing these two laryngoscopes in managing the difficult intubations. In C-spine injury scenarios, the standard positioning and intubation technique for direct laryngoscopy cannot be employed in order to minimize the cervical spine injury.In our study we are simulating a restricted neck movement using the application of manual in line axial stabilization [MIAS] maneuver in patients who are not having difficult air way predictors and no C-spine injuries, requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation for their contemplated surgical procedures.In this study we will try to simulate a scenario which we normally come across in trauma patients with C-spine involvement. .In this study we are comparing the efficacy of CMAC D blade against Glidescope

Interventions

The CMAC D blade and Glidescope are essentially meant for difficult intubations. In this present study we are comparing these two laryngoscopes in managing the difficult intubations. The limited extension of the neck will be simulated in patients with normal arirway anatomy, using manual in line axial stabilisation (MIAS) manouvre. CMAC D Blade is specially designed blade recommended by the manufacturer in managing the difficult airways. In this study we are testing the efficacy of CMAC D blad

The CMAC D blade and Glidescope are essentially meant for difficult intubations. In this present study we are comparing these two laryngoscopes in managing the difficult intubations. The limited extension of the neck will be simulated in patients with normal arirway anatomy, using manual in line axial stabilisation (MIAS) manouvre. CMAC D Blade is specially designed blade recommended by the manufacturer in managing the difficult airways. In this study we are testing the efficacy of CMAC D blade against Glidescope. MIAS is applied by an assistant ,standing beside the patient in front of the laryngoscopist with hands placed on the sides of the patient’s head and forearms resting on the patient’s chest. laryngoscopy will be done by single experienced anesthetist of consultant grade. Failure to intubate is defined as time taken to intubation exceeding more than 120 seconds or more than three unsuccessful attempts. The laryngoscopist grade the Intubation difficulty as per the Intubation Difficulty Scale Score (IDS). As per IDS score 0 score will be no difficulty and infinite score is impossible to intubate.

Sponsors

SHAHID ADEEL
Lead SponsorIndividual

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Treatment
Masking
Blinded (masking used) (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Patients undergoing elective surgery that require general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. No predictors for difficult airway: as defined by Mouth opening more than 4 cms, Thyromental distance > 6 cms. Malampati grade 1 and 2. No documented evidence of difficult airway

Exclusion criteria

Trauma patients Emergency surgery Any clinical predictors of difficult airway Burns patients. Bronchial asthma, COPD, bronchiectasis Recent history of chest infection < 4 weeks Thoracic cage anatomical deformity.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026