[A case-control study of airway management for 68 patients with cervical spine injury: comparison of the direct laryngoscope with a Macintosh blade and the fiberoptic bronchoscope].

BACKGROUND: As for cervical spine injury, special consideration for airway management is required but the optimal strategy remains controversial. Direct laryngoscopy (DL) creates some degree of cervical extension leading to secondary neurologic deterioration. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) may facilitate tracheal intubation with little cervical motion, but has several inherent limitations. A few objective data prompted us to compare the neurologic outcome relating to the orotracheal intubation using the different types of technique, the DL with a Macintosh blade or the FOB. METHODS: To identify the effect of different methods on the intubation time, neurologic disability, and adverse effects, 68 cervical spine-injured patients with the use of DL (group L; 36 patients) or FOB (group F; 32 patients) were retrospectively reviewed using hospital records. Following the induction of general anesthesia, the trachea was intubated with no immobilizing forces in group L, while awake intubation was accomplished in group F after judicious application of local anesthesia to the larynx and trachea. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the groups in age, BMI, intubation time, postoperative neurologic outcome or incidence of aspiration pneumonia. Moreover, no neurologic deterioration was shown after DL and orotracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the routine practice of the bronchoscope-assisted awake intubation in patients with cervical spine injury. The clinical value of this technique in offering some neurologic advantage remains limited.