Comparison of lightwand intubation technique in neck-immobilized patients with face-to-face and conventional approaches

The lightwand is a valuable device for managing the airways of patients with neck immobilization due to its ease of minimal neck movement. For lightwand intubation, adopting a face-to-face technique offers the potential for improved accessibility and reduced risk of injury associated with blind scooping maneuvers. In this study, we compared the initial success rate of the face-to-face approach with the conventional method as the primary endpoint and their complications as the second endpoint, including postoperative sore throat, the incidence of bleeding and hoarseness in neck-immobilized patients. Our findings indicate that the initial success rate was 84.1% for the face-to-face approach and 88.6% for the conventional approach (p = 0.381). The intubation times for the face-to-face approach and conventional approach were 12.0 and 14.0 seconds, respectively (p = 0.704). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences observed in the overall incidence of postoperative complications, including sore throat, bleeding and hoarseness. In summary, our study shows that the face-to-face approach in lightwand intubation for neck-immobilized patients could be suggested as one of the alternatives, yielding outcomes similar to the conventional lightwand technique.

Airway management; Difficult airway; Face-to-face intubation; Lightwand; Neck immobilized; Trauma

[1] Wiles MD. Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed traumatic spinal cord injury: a narrative review of current evidence. Anaesthesia. 2022; 77: 1120–1128.

[2] Eduardo Lema F, Henry M, Claudia G, Carlos Eduardo H, Luis Alberto TB. Guidelines for intubation under fiberoptic bronchoscopy in a university hospital. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2012; 40: 60–66.

[3] Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Connis RT, Abdelmalak BB, Agarkar M, Dutton RP, et al. 2022 American society of anesthesiologists practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2022; 136: 31–81.

[4] Epaud A, Levesque E, Clariot S. Dramatic cervical spine injury secondary to videolaryngoscopy in a patient suffering from ankylosing spondylitis. Anesthesiology. 2021; 135: 495–496.

[5] Turkstra TP, Craen RA, Pelz DM, Gelb AW. Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison during intubation with lighted stylet, glidescope, and macintosh laryngoscope. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2005; 101: 910–915.

[6] Hong KY, Lee JE, Hwang HJ, Sim WS, Park HJ, Lee JY. Evaluation of factors affecting illumination intensity in lightwand endotracheal intubation. In Vivo. 2024; 38: 490–495.

[7] Jeong H, Chae M, Seo H, Yi J, Kang J, Lee B. Face-to-face intubation using a lightwand in a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphosis: a case report. BMC Anesthesiology. 2018; 18: 92.

[8] Venezia D, Wackett A, Remedios A, Tarsia V. Comparison of sitting face-to-face intubation (two-person technique) with standard oral-tracheal intubation in novices: a mannequin study. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012; 43: 1188–1195.

[9] Pace AK, Bruceta M, Donovan J, Vaida SJ, Eckert JM. An objective pain score for chronic pain clinic patients. Pain Research and Management. 2021; 2021: 6695741.

[10] Harvey K, Davies R, Evans A, Latto IP, Hall JE. A comparison of the use of Trachlight® and Eschmann multiple-use introducer in simulated difficult intubation. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2007; 24: 76–81.

[11] Nowak-Tim J, Gaszynski T, Ratajczyk P. A comparison of face-to-face endotracheal intubation and standard intubation using Airtraq video laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine. 2022; 101: e32046.

[12] Ynineb Y, Boglietto E, Bonnet F, Quesnel C, Garnier M. Face-to-face double-lumen tube intubation with the Airtraq video laryngoscope for emergency thoracic surgery: a case report. Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2022; 26: 90–94.

[13] Julliard D, Vassiliadis J, Bowra J, Gillett M, Knipp R, Krishnamohan A, et al. Comparison of supine and upright face-to-face cadaver intubation. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2022; 56: 87–91.

[14] Yang K, Jeong CH, Song KC, Song JY, Song J, Byon H. Comparison between glidescope and lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2015; 68: 22.

[15] Massó E, Sabaté S, Hinojosa M, Vila P, Canet J, Langeron O. Lightwand tracheal intubation with and without muscle relaxation. Anesthesiology. 2006; 104: 249–254.

[16] Ge X, Liu W, Zhang Z, Xie F, Zhao T, Li Y. Evaluation of lightwand-guided endotracheal intubation for patients with missing or no teeth: a randomized controlled study. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2021; 71: 395–401.

[17] Sheet J, Mandal A, Sengupta S, Jana D, Mukherji S, Swaika S. Anaesthetic management in a case of huge plunging ranula. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches. 2014; 8: 114.

[18] Dutta K, Sriganesh K, Chakrabarti D, Pruthi N, Reddy M. Cervical spine movement during awake orotracheal intubation with fiberoptic scope and McGrath videolaryngoscope in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spine instability: a randomized control trial. Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology. 2020; 32: 249–255.