A prospective, randomised and single blind clinical trial was designed to compare intravenous methylprednisolone pulse (IVGC) with oral methylprednisolone (OGC) monotherapy in terms of effectiveness and tolerability in Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO). Fifty-two consecutive patients with untreated, moderately severe and active GO were randomly treated with either IVGC or OGC therapy for 12 weeks. IVGC therapy achieved a more rapid and significant improvement than OGC therapy according to clinical activity score (p < 0.01), proptosis (p < 0.038), lid width (p < 0.0001), extraocular muscle changes (p < 0.02), optic neuropathy. (p < 0.001), intraocular pressure (p < 0.04), visual acuity (p < 0.03), quality of life (p < 0.0001) and treatment response (p < 0.001). Diplopia was significantly improved in two groups but there was no difference between them (p < 0.6). Heavy smokers indicated alteration of ophthalmic signs with increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH)-receptor antibody during the therapy. In conclusion, IVGC therapy was more effective and better tolerated than OGC therapy in the management of GO.

The new coma Scale, FOUR Score, is not superior to the GCS. However, the combination of the eye and motor components of FOUR Score is a valuable tool that can be used instead of either the FOUR Score or GCS.

ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) to the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation of blunt trauma patients in the ED.Material and methodsThis was a prospective randomized study. The primary outcome measure is overall successful intubation. Secondary outcome measures are first attempt successful intubation, Cormack–Lehane (CL) grade, and indicators of the reasons for unsuccessful intubation at the first attempt with each device. Adult patients who suffered from blunt trauma and required intubation were randomized to video laryngoscopy with C-MAC device or direct laryngoscopy (DL).ResultsDuring a 17-month period, a total of 150 trauma intubations were performed using a C-MAC and DL. Baseline characteristics of patients were similar between the C-MAC and DL group. Overall success for the C-MAC was 69/75 (92%, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96) while for the DL it was 72/75 (96%, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98). First attempt success for the C-MAC was 47/75 (62.7%, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.72) while for the DL it was 44/75 patients (58.7%, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69). The mean time to achieve successful intubation was 33.4 ± 2.5 s for the C-MAC versus 42.4 ± 5.1 s for the DL (p = 0.93). There was a statistically significant difference between the DL and C-MAC in terms of visualizing the glottic opening and esophageal intubation in favor of the C-MAC (p = 0.002 and p = 0.013 respectively).Discussion and conclusionThe overall success rates were similar. The C-MAC demonstrated improved glottic view and decrease in esophageal intubation rate.