ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of video and direct laryngoscopy on first-pass success rates for out-of-hospital orotracheal intubation. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Out-of-hospital studies comparing video and direct laryngoscopy on either first-pass or overall intubation success were included. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with a primary outcome of first-pass success stratified by clinician type and laryngoscope blade geometry. The secondary outcomes were overall intubation success stratified by clinician type, and intubation time. All hypotheses and subgroup analyses were determined a priori. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies involving 35,489 intubations met inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity (>75%) precluded reporting point estimates for nearly all analyses. For our primary outcome, video laryngoscopy was associated with improved first-pass success in 3/5 physician studies, 4/6 critical care paramedic/registered nurse studies, and 7/10 paramedic studies. Video laryngoscope devices with Macintosh blade geometry were associated with improved first-pass success in 7/10 studies, while devices with hyperangulated geometry were associated with improved first-pass success in 3/7 studies. Overall intubation success was greater with video laryngoscopy in 2/6 studies in the physician subgroup and 9/10 studies in the paramedic subgroup. Video laryngoscopy was not associated with overall intubation success among critical care paramedics/nurses (OR = 1.89, 0.96 to 3.72, I2 = 34%). Lastly, 4/5 studies found video laryngoscopy to be associated with longer intubation times. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial heterogeneity among out-of-hospital studies comparing video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy on first-pass success, overall success, or intubation time. This heterogeneity was not explained with stratification by study design, clinician type, video laryngoscope blade geometry, or leave-one-out meta-analysis. A majority of studies showed that video laryngoscopy was associated with improved first pass success in all subgroups, but only for paramedics and not physicians when looking at overall success. This improvement was more common in studies that used Macintosh blades than those that used hyperangulated blades. Future research should explore the heterogeneity identified in our analysis with an emphasis on differences in training, clinical milieu, and specific video laryngoscope devices.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Laryngoscopes , Humans , Laryngoscopy , Intubation, Intratracheal , Hospitals , Video RecordingABSTRACT
Study design: Meta-analysis. Objectives: Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the perioperative utility of general versus spinal anesthesia in the lumbar spine surgery population. Methods: PubMed and Embase were queried for manuscripts reporting perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing one to three-level lumbar spine surgery (including decompression, fusion, and decompression with fusion) using either general or spinal anesthesia. Inclusion criteria included studies published from 2005 to 2021, in English, involving primary data from human subjects. Studies were further screened for data on total operative time, blood loss, intraoperative hypotension, pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, time required in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), PACU pain anesthetic requirement, and length of stay. Risk of bias for each study was assessed using standardized tools (i.e., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NOS, as appropriate). Potential predictors of outcome were compared using univariate analysis, and variables potentially associated with outcome were subjected to meta-analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing to produce standard mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In total, 12 studies totaling 2796 patients met inclusion criteria. 1414 (50.6%) and 1382 (49.4%) patients underwent lumbar spine surgery with general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia, respectively. Patients undergoing spinal anesthesia were statistically more likely to have coronary artery disease and respiratory dysfunction. Total operative time (SMD: 12.62 min, 95% CI -18.65 to -6.59), estimated blood loss (SMD: 0.57 mL, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.46), postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.26), time required in PACU (SMD = -0.20 min, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.08), and length of stay (SMD = -0.14 day, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.10), all statistically significantly favored spinal anesthesia over general anesthesia (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In one to three-level lumbar spine surgery, current literature supports spinal anesthesia as a viable alternative to general anesthesia. As this was a heterogeneous patient population, prospective randomized trials are needed to corroborate findings.
