Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of lightwand intubation technique in neck-immobilized patients with face-to-face and conventional approaches

  • Kyeong Hyeon Min
  • , Hyungseok Seo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The lightwand is a valuable device for managing the airways of patients with neck immobilization due to its ease of minimal neck movement. For lightwand intubation, adopting a face-to-face technique offers the potential for improved accessibility and reduced risk of injury associated with blind scooping maneuvers. In this study, we compared the initial success rate of the face-to-face approach with the conventional method as the primary endpoint and their complications as the second endpoint, including postoperative sore throat, the incidence of bleeding and hoarseness in neckimmobilized patients. Our findings indicate that the initial success rate was 84.1% for the face-to-face approach and 88.6% for the conventional approach (p = 0.381). The intubation times for the face-to-face approach and conventional approach were 12.0 and 14.0 seconds, respectively (p = 0.704). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences observed in the overall incidence of postoperative complications, including sore throat, bleeding and hoarseness. In summary, our study shows that the face-to-face approach in lightwand intubation for neck-immobilized patients could be suggested as one of the alternatives, yielding outcomes similar to the conventional lightwand technique.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-25
Number of pages7
JournalSigna Vitae
Volume20
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s).

Keywords

  • Airway management
  • Difficult airway
  • Face-to-face intubation
  • Lightwand
  • Neck immobilized
  • Trauma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of lightwand intubation technique in neck-immobilized patients with face-to-face and conventional approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this