CP is considered a standard of care in many parts of the world, particularly the United Kingdom, North America, and Australia. However, this is not common practice elsewhere and remains a controversial issue. Its performance seems to be declining in Europe, and some prehospital organizations do not approve of its use. PC may also not be a common practice in areas where there are no qualified health care providers to assist the anesthesiologist. In general, concerns related to the implementation of CP include difficulties with laryngoscopy, lack of strong evidence of its effectiveness, potentially increased risk of reflux, and deterioration of unnoticed trauma to the larynx or cervical spine. Additionally, concerns about precise application of cricoid force, patient discomfort, and increased physical and cognitive workload on the part of healthcare professionals make CP anything but a "simple maneuver that can be taught to an assistant in seconds,” as was once thought. . In recently published guidelines from various international societies, including the 2015 Guidelines on Airway Management of the Board of Directors of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the 2015 Guidelines of the European Council for resuscitation, the systematic use of CP is no longer recommended. It is clear that these guidelines reflect the skepticism of the corresponding medical societies regarding the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This could have significant medico-legal implications since a doctor could no longer be accused of not using CP. Based on the results of non-randomized trials, a recent Cochrane systematic review concluded that PC may not be essential for safely performing RSI. It is recognized that there are two schools of thought on the benefits of CP. It is true that there are no randomized controlled trials proving the favorable outcomes of PC in terms of patient safety and effectiveness, and the level of evidence to encourage the application of PC is low. Due to ethical constraints, it is very unlikely that such trials will be approved. Even if such a study were conducted, it would not reveal much information due to practical problems. Thus, the effectiveness of CP should be evaluated by other means. On the other hand, reports of the preventive role of CP in gastric insufflation make it difficult to safely argue against its effectiveness. We recognize that the use of CP could hamper some aspects of airway management, especially when poorly applied; however, any complications are reversible upon removal. One of the main issues in evaluating the overall effectiveness of CP is determining whether CP successfully fulfills its primary goal of reducing the risk of gastric regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration. It is obvious that CP cannot completely eliminate this risk. In a number of studies, regurgitation still occurred even with the application of CP. We cannot deny that, ideally, regurgitation situations should be eliminated. Yet meeting these high expectations is not necessary to prove the effectiveness of CP. As long as it can be proven that CP results in a reduction in the incidence of.