The aim of this study was to compare C-MAC videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation in simulated cervical spine immobilization conditions.Methods
The study was designed as a prospective randomized crossover manikin trial. 70 paramedics with < 5 years of medical experience participated in the study. The paramedics attempted to intubate manikins in 3 airway scenarios: normal airway without cervical immobilization (Scenario A); manual inline cervical immobilization (Scenario B); cervical immobilization using cervical extraction collar (Scenario C).Results
Scenario A: Nearly all participants performed successful intubations with both MAC and C-MAC on the first attempt (95.7% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), with similar intubation times (16.5 s MAC vs. 18 s C-MAC). Scenario B: The results with C-MAC were significantly better than those with MAC (p < 0.05) for the time of intubation (23 s MAC vs. 19 s C-MAC), success of the first intubation attempt (88.6% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, severity of dental compression, device difficulty score, and preferred airway device. Scenario C: The results with C-MAC were significantly better than those with MAC (p < 0.05) for all the analysed variables: success of the first attempt (51.4% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), overall success rate, intubation time (27 s MAC vs. 20.5 s C-MAC), Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, dental compression, device difficulty score and the preferred airway device.Conclusion
The C-MAC videolaryngoscope is an excellent alternative to the MAC laryngoscope for intubating manikins with cervical spine immobilization.