↓ Skip to main content

A deliberately restricted laryngeal view with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope is associated with faster and easier tracheal intubation when compared with a full glottic view: a randomized clinical…

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
64 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
A deliberately restricted laryngeal view with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope is associated with faster and easier tracheal intubation when compared with a full glottic view: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12630-016-0654-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuqi Gu, Joshua Robert, George Kovacs, Andrew D. Milne, Ian Morris, Orlando Hung, Kirk MacQuarrie, Sean Mackinnon, J. Adam Law

Abstract

During video laryngoscopy (VL) with angulated or hyper-curved blades, it is sometimes difficult to complete tracheal intubation despite a full view of the larynx. When using indirect VL, it has been suggested that it may be preferable to obtain a deliberately restricted view of the larynx to facilitate passage of the endotracheal tube. We used the GlideScope® GVL video laryngoscope (GVL) to test whether deliberately obtaining a restricted view would result in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view of the larynx. We recruited 163 elective surgical patients and randomly allocated the participants to one of two groups: Group F, where a full view of the larynx was obtained and held during GVL-facilitated tracheal intubation, and Group R, with a restricted view of the larynx (< 50% of glottic opening visible). Study investigators experienced in indirect VL performed the intubations. The intubations were recorded and the video recordings were subsequently assessed for total time to intubation, ease of intubation using a visual analogue scale (VAS; where 0 = easy and 100 = difficult), first-attempt success rate, and oxygen saturation after intubation. Complications were also assessed. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to intubation was faster in Group R than in Group F (27 [22-36] sec vs 36 [27-48] sec, respectively; median difference, 9 sec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 13; P < 0.001). The median [IQR] VAS rating for ease of intubation was also better in Group R than in Group F (14 [6-42) mm vs 50 mm [17-65], respectively; median difference, 20 mm; 95% CI, 10 to 31; P < 0.001). There was no difference between groups regarding the first-attempt success rate, oxygen saturation immediately after intubation, or complications. Using the GVL with a deliberately restricted view of the larynx resulted in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view and with no additional complications. Our study suggests that obtaining a full or Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view may not be desirable when using the GVL. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02144207.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Student > Master 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 19 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 19 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2023.
All research outputs
#964,347
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#81
of 2,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,766
of 313,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.