IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of outcomes between video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical neck immobilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Nana Guo
  • Xuxin Wen
  • Xiao Wang
  • Junling Yang
  • Haidong Zhou
  • Jianli Guo
  • Yun Su
  • Tingxin Zhang

Abstract

Purpose: Comparing the outcomes of video-laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization Methods: All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases as of 8 Jan 2024 were included. All outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. The primary outcomes were the successful first-attempt intubation rate, intubation time, heart rate after intubation, mean arterial pressure after intubation, overall intubation success rate, risk of tissue damage and sore throat. Results: The meta-analysis included six randomized controlled studies with a total of 694 patients. The outcomes of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of video laryngoscopy was better than flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy in terms of the successful first-attempt intubation rate (P 0.05) between the video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy groups. Conclusions: Compared with flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy, video laryngoscopy has superior tracheal intubation performance in terms of the first-attempt success rate and intubation speed. This finding was observed in patients with cervical spine immobilization who utilized a cervical collar to simulate a difficult airway. Additionally, both types of scopes demonstrated similar complication rates. Current evidence suggests that video laryngoscopy is better suited than flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in patients immobilized with a cervical collar. Trial registration: Systematic review protocol: CRD42024499868.

Suggested Citation

  • Nana Guo & Xuxin Wen & Xiao Wang & Junling Yang & Haidong Zhou & Jianli Guo & Yun Su & Tingxin Zhang, 2024. "Comparison of outcomes between video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical neck immobilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313280
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313280
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313280&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313280?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.