Effectiveness of intubation devices in patients with cervical spine immobilisation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Cervical spine immobilisation increases the difficulty of tracheal intubation. Many intubation devices have been evaluated in this setting, but their relative performance remains uncertain.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomised trials comparing two or more intubation devices in adults with cervical spine immobilisation. After critical appraisal, a random-effects network meta-analysis was used to pool and compare device performance. The primary outcome was the probability of first-attempt intubation success (first-pass success). For relative performance, the Macintosh direct laryngoscopy blade was chosen as the reference device.

Results: We included 80 trials (8039 subjects) comparing 26 devices. Compared with the Macintosh, McGrath™ (odds ratio [OR]=11.5; 95% credible interval [CrI] 3.19-46.20), C-MAC D Blade™ (OR=7.44; 95% CrI, 1.06-52.50), Airtraq™ (OR=5.43; 95% CrI, 2.15-14.2), King Vision™ (OR=4.54; 95% CrI, 1.28-16.30), and C-MAC™ (OR=4.20; 95% CrI=1.28-15.10) had a greater probability of first-pass success. This was also true for the GlideScope™ when a tube guide was used (OR=3.54; 95% CrI, 1.05-12.50). Only the Airway Scope™ had a better probability of first-pass success compared with the Macintosh when manual-in-line stabilisation (MILS) was used as the immobilisation technique (OR=7.98; 95% CrI, 1.06-73.00).

Conclusions: For intubation performed with cervical immobilisation, seven devices had a better probability of first-pass success compared with the Macintosh. However, more studies using MILS (rather than a cervical collar or other alternative) are needed, which more accurately represent clinical practice.

Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019158067 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158067).