Complications of Halo Vest Orthosis: A Narrative Study

Background and Aim: Perry and Nickel introduced the halo vest in 1959. It is the most common immobilization device for the unstable cervical spine. In the literature review, most articles review the beneficial effects of the halo vest, and a few report its complications. This study aims to evaluate the complications associated with halo orthosis. Methods and Materials/Patients: This is a narrative study about halo vest complications. To provide up-to-date information, we reviewed the articles written about halo complications. All relevant articles were retrieved from Google Scholar, Medline, PubMed, etc., using the keywords of “halo vest orthosis”, “unstable cervical spine fracture”, “halo vest complications”, “halo vest immobilization”, “pin-site-related complications”, and “vest-related complications”. Afterward, we reviewed and critically analyzed the articles. Results: At first, the halo vest was used for postoperative paralyzed poliomyelitis patients, and later, it was also used for traumatic injury of the cervical spine or postoperatively in cervical spine reconstructive surgery. Compared to other orthoses, the halo vest provides a more effective external fixation and maintains normal anatomic alignment of the cervical spine without impacting jaw motion and resulting in eating problems. However, it has many temporary complications. To prevent halo vest complications, experienced people should apply it, and the patients should be regularly followed up for early detection and treatment of complications. Conclusion: Our review is the starting point for the evaluation and investigation of halo vest complications. Because of the high incidence of pin loosening and infection, it is better to evaluate the design and application of halo pin. Since the initial design of the halo vest, only its superstructure has been redesigned without any significant change in other parts of it.

TRACHEAL INTUBATION DURING MANUAL INLINE STABILISATION: COMPARISON OF INTUBATING LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY™ VERSUS TRACHLIGHT®

Introduction: Airway management with unstable cervical spine is a major challenge to anesthetist. Conventional direct laryngoscopy causes substantial movement of cervical spine and can cause neurological decit. Newer devices like Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway(ILMA) and Trachlight avoid cervical spine movement. To compare rate of successful tracheal Aim: intubation with Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway™ with Trachlight® in anaesthetised and paralysed adults with manual in line stabilization Method and Materials: 50 patients were included in the study and allocated in two groups. In the ILMA group ,patients were ventilated and then intubated through the ILma. IN the Trachlight group, patients were intubated using trachlight. Success rate , time taken for intubation and post operative sore throat and hoarseness of voice were compared between the two groups. Results: In the ILMA group,21 patients could be adequately ventilated in the rst attempt and 4 in second attempt. 12 patients could be successfully intubated. 9 patients could be intubated in the rst attempt and 3 patients in second attempt. In the Trachlight , 24 patients could be intubated in the rst attempt and one patient in second attempt. Intubation time was 14.08 ± 2.23 seconds in the ILMA group whereas in Trachlight group it was 26.48 ± 9.13 seconds(p value of <0.0001) In healthy anaesthetized,paralysed adults with manual in line stabiliz Conclusion: ation Trachlight assistance at tracheal intubation provides high rst attempt success.ILMA is an effective ventilation device, but an unacceptably high failure rate at blind tracheal intubation.