Table 1.
Study | Age (yr) | BMI (kg/m2) | Intervention vs control | Technique for neck immobilization | Sample size | Country | Exclude difficult airway |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abdullah et al[21] | 49.9 ± 13.0 | 25.7 ± 4.8 23.4 | Bonfils intubation fiberscope | Hard cervical collar | 60 | Singapore | Yes |
43.8 ± 13.4 | ± 3.4 | McCoy laryngoscope | |||||
Byhahn et al[22] | 46.4 ± 20.3 | 24.7 ± 2.7 | Bonfils intubation fiberscope | Hard cervical collar | 76 | Germany | Yes |
44.2 ± 19.3 | 25.2 ± 3.4 | Macintosh laryngoscope | |||||
Gupta et al[23] | 34.3 ± 11.5 | NA | Bonfils intubation fiberscope | Hard cervical collar | 120 | India | Yes |
32.0 ± 10.3 | Macintosh laryngoscope | ||||||
Kok et al[24] | 45 ± 13 | 27.0 ± 5.2 | Levitan FPS Scope | Manual in-line stabilization | 185 | Canada | Yes |
Macintosh laryngoscope | |||||||
Turkstra et al[25] | 52 ± 16 | 29 ± 5 | Shikani Optical Stylet | Manual in-line stabilization | 46 | Canada | Yes |
50 ± 18 | 29 ± 4 | Macintosh laryngoscope |