Comparison of Intubation Conditions Between Airtraq, McGrath Video Laryngoscopes, and Macintosh Under Conditions of Simulated Trauma Airway and Rapid Sequence Induction Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Patients arriving at the emergency department with a potential cervical spine injury and immobilized in a rigid cervical collar often require emergency airway management and rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII). There have been several advances in airway management with the advent of channeled (AirtraqⓇ; Prodol Meditec) and nonchanneled (McGrathⓇ; Meditronics) video laryngoscopes, which enable intubation without the removal of the cervical collar, but their efficacy and superiority over conventional laryngoscopy (Macintosh) in the presence of a rigid cervical collar and cricoid pressure have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the channeled (Airtraq [group A]) and nonchanneled (McGrath [Group M]) video laryngoscopes with a conventional laryngoscope (Macintosh [Group C]) in a simulated trauma airway. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in a tertiary care center. Participants were 300 patients requiring general anesthesia (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II), of both sexes, and aged 18-60 years. Airway management was simulated without removal of a rigid cervical collar and using cricoid pressure during intubation. After RSI, patients were intubated with one of the study techniques according to randomization. Intubation time and intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score were noted. RESULTS: Mean intubation time was 42.2 s in group C, 35.7 s in group M, and 21.8 s in group A (p = 0.001). Intubation was easy in group M and group A (median IDS score of 0; interquartile range [IQR] 0-1 for group M and median IDS score of 1; IQR 0-2 for group A and group C; p < 0.001). A higher proportion (95.1%) of patients had an IDS score of < 1 in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of RSII with cricoid pressure in the presence of a cervical collar was easier and more rapid with channeled video laryngoscope than with other techniques.

Comparative Analysis of 30-Day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity between Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Performed in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) in inpatient vs. outpatient settings. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: PCDF has recently been increasingly performed in outpatient settings, often utilizing minimally invasive techniques. However, literature evaluating short-term outcomes for PCDF is scarce. Moreover, no currently large-scale database studies have compared short-term outcomes between PCDF performed in the inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: Patients who underwent PCDF from 2005 to 2018 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Regression analysis was utilized to compare primary outcomes between surgical settings and evaluate for predictors thereof. RESULTS: We identified 8,912 patients. Unadjusted analysis revealed that outpatients had lower readmission (4.7% vs. 8.8%, p =0.020), reoperation (1.7% vs. 3.8%, p =0.038), and morbidity (4.5% vs. 11.2%, p <0.001) rates. After adjusting for baseline differences, readmission, reoperation, and morbidity no longer statistically differed between surgical settings. Outpatients had lower operative time (126 minutes vs. 179 minutes) and levels fused (1.8 vs. 2.2) (p <0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that age (p =0.008; odds ratio [OR], 1.012), weight loss (p =0.045; OR, 2.444), and increased creatinine (p <0.001; OR, 2.233) independently predicted readmission. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of ≥3 predicted reoperation (p =0.028; OR, 1.406). Rehabilitation discharge (p <0.001; OR, 1.412), ASA-class of ≥3 (p =0.008; OR, 1.296), decreased hematocrit (p <0.001; OR, 1.700), and operative time (p <0.001; OR, 1.005) predicted morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes were statistically similar between surgical settings, indicating that PCDF can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure. Surrogates for poor health predicted negative outcomes. These results are particularly important as we continue to shift spinal surgery to outpatient centers. This importance has been highlighted by the need to unburden inpatient sites, particularly during public health emergencies, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Measuring Cervical Rotation During Telehealth

INTRODUCTION: Measuring cervical rotation virtually can be challenging during telehealth. The objective of this study was to proof the concept of measuring cervical rotation virtually during telehealth. METHODS: Subjects were instructed to sit in a chair with back supported and face to a computer with video conferencing platform communicating remotely with another computer. The subjects were instructed to rotate their neck from 0° to the end range with increments of 10°. Cervical rotation (CRoM) was calculated based on the changes of the distance between the subject's eyes on the screenshot. Data analysis included descriptive analysis, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean CRoM was 0.0 (SD 0.0), 14.3 (3.4), 28.5 (5.1), 39.9 (5.9), 49.2 (6.5), 57.7 (6.8), 65.5 (6.9), 72.6 (5.5), and 80.8° (3.7°) from 0 to 80° in 10° increments, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was 0.99, indicating a very high correlation. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that 91.7% (111 out of 121) of the CRoM fell within the limits of agreement (95% confidence interval). DISCUSSION: Cervical rotation can be measured virtually using the changes of the distance between subject's eyes. No additional devices are required so it would work well for most patients.