Loading clinical trials...

Comparison of Two Different Lightwand Intubation Techniques in Cervical Immobilized Patients | Clinical Trials | Clareo Health

COMPLETEDNA

Comparison of Two Different Lightwand Intubation Techniques in Cervical Immobilized Patients

Comparison of the Intubation Success Rate Between Two Techniques Using Lightwand in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Conventional vs. Face-to-face Technique

NCT06119360•Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong

View on ClinicalTrials.gov

Summary

This study compares two different approaches of lightwand intubation techniques in cervical immobilized patients.

Detailed Description

This study compares two approaches in lightwand intubation techniques in cervical immobilized patients. One is a conventional approach that involves scooping movement with mandible protraction. The other is a face-to-face approach that inserts lightwand with a front-facing position. This study is conducted as a randomized, prospective, single-blinded design.

Eligibility

Age

18 - No limit years

Sex

ALL

Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria

•adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-3
•patients who received scheduled spine surgery under general anesthesia

Exclusion Criteria

•patients with body mass index \<18.5 kg/m2 or \>35.0 kg/m2,
•patients who previously had head and neck surgery,
•patients who are at high risk of aspiration,
•patients with pathologic conditions such as tumors, polyps, or inflammation in the airway,
•patients who cannot sit due to severe spine deformity,
•patients who have compromised cardiopulmonary function patients with clinically significant neurovascular disease

Locations (1)

Kyung Hee University Gangdong Hospital

Seoul, South Korea

Key Dates

Start Date

December 12, 2018

Primary Completion Date

February 13, 2019

Completion Date

August 31, 2019

Last Updated

November 7, 2023

Enrollment

176

ACTUAL participants

Conditions

Intubation; Difficult or Failed

Interventions

Face-to-face approach

PROCEDURE

Conventional approach

PROCEDURE

Comparison of Ultrasound Methods for Assessment of Endotracheal Tube Placement

NCT06656546

Intubation; Difficult or Failed

View study

COMPLETEDNA

DOuble-Lumen Intubation With VIdeolaryngoscopy

NCT06401486

Intubation ComplicationIntubation; Difficult or Failed+2 more

View study

COMPLETED

Data Source & Attribution

This clinical trial information is sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

ClinicalTrials.gov last update: November 7, 2023Data synced to Clareo: March 29, 2026

Modifications: This data has been reformatted for display purposes. Eligibility criteria have been parsed into inclusion/exclusion sections. Location data has been geocoded to enable distance-based search. For the authoritative and most current information, please visit ClinicalTrials.gov.

Neither the United States Government nor Clareo Health make any warranties regarding the data. Check ClinicalTrials.gov frequently for updates.

View ClinicalTrials.gov Terms and Conditions

Comparison of Two Different Lightwand Intubation Techniques in Cervical Immobilized Patients

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Comparison of Ultrasound Methods for Assessment of Endotracheal Tube Placement

DOuble-Lumen Intubation With VIdeolaryngoscopy

Comparing iView Video Laryngoscope in the Emergency Department

Flexible Tip Bougie Vs Tube with Stylet for Intubation with a Videolaryngoscopy in ICU (VIDEOL-FLEXTIP)

Effect of Head-neck Rotation on I-gel™ Insertion

Application of THRIVE in Burn Children With Suspected Difficult Airway