Comparison of video-stylet and conventional laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in adults with cervical spine immobilization: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

Background: Although minimization of cervical spine motion by using a neck collar or manual in-line stabilization is recommended for urgent tracheal intubation (TI) in patients with known or suspected cervical spine injury (CSI), it may worsen glottic visualization. The overall performance of video-stylets during TI in patients with neck immobilization remains unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed at comparing the intubation outcomes of different video-stylets with those of conventional laryngoscopes in patients with cervical immobilization. Method: The databases of Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to June 2021 to identify trials comparing intubation outcomes between video-stylets and conventional laryngoscopes. The primary outcome was first-pass success rate, while secondary outcomes included overall success rate, time to intubation, the risk of intubation-associated sore throat, or tissue damage. Results: Five randomized controlled trials published between 2007 and 2013 involving 487 participants, all in an operating room setting, were analyzed. The video-stylets investigated included Bonfils intubation fiberscope, Levitan FPS Scope, and Shikani optical stylet. There was no difference in first-pass success rate (risk ratio [RR] =1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.31, P = .46], overall success rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.93-1.22, P = .4), intubation time [mean difference = 4.53 seconds, 95% CI: -8.45 to 17.51, P = .49), and risk of tissue damage (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.16-1.3, P = .14) between the 2 groups. The risk of sore throat was lower with video-stylets compared to that with laryngoscopes (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.9, P = .02). Conclusion: Our results did not support the use of video-stylets as the first choice for patients with neck immobilization. Further studies are required to verify the efficacy of video-stylets in the nonoperating room setting.

Automated summary

By comparing the outcomes of video-stylets and conventional laryngoscopes in tracheal intubation of patients with cervical immobilization, the study found no significant differences in intubation success rate, time, and risk of tissue damage between the two, but video-stylets had a lower risk of causing sore throat.