Comparison of video-stylet and video-laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical neck immobilisation: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract

BackgroundThe efficacy of video-stylet versus video-laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilisation, which is known to impede the intubation process, remains unclear. MethodsWe searched electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials comparing video-stylets with video-laryngoscopes in human subjects with cervical spine immobilisation from inception to the 25th of January 2021. The primary outcome was the rate of successful first-attempt intubation, while secondary outcomes included overall intubation success rate, time for successful intubation, and risk of tissue damage. ResultsFive trials (709 patients) published between 2009 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. There were four types of video-stylets and three types of video-laryngoscopes examined. Hard cervical collar was applied in four studies, while manual inline stabilisation was used in one study for cervical immobilisation. There was no difference in successful first-attempt intubation rate between the video-stylet and the video-laryngoscope groups [risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90–1.03, p = 0.3; I2 = 47%] (5 trials, 709 patients). The overall success rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96–1.0, p = 0.05; I2 = 0%), intubation time [mean difference (MD) = 5.24, 95% CI: -8.95 to 19.43, p = 0.47; I2 = 92%], and risk of tissue damage (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.26–2.85, p = 0.81; I2 = 39%) were also comparable between the two groups. ConclusionsThis study validates the efficacy of both video-stylets and video-laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in the situation of cervical spine immobilisation. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings in this clinical setting.