ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia2010
Low flow anesthesia: Efficacy and outcome of laryngeal mask airway versus pressure-optimized cuffed-endotracheal tube.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of leak fraction between the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube during anesthesia: a single-center retrospective study.Journal of anesthesia · 2024Article
- Hemodynamic parameters of low-flow isoflurane and low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia during controlled ventilation with laryngeal mask airway.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2014Article
- Comparison of postoperative complication between Laryngeal Mask Airway and endotracheal tube during low-flow anesthesia with controlled ventilation.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow flow anesthesia can lead to reduction of anesthetic gas and vapor consumption. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has proved to be an effective and safe airway device. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of laryngeal mask airway during controlled ventilation using low fresh gas flow (1.0 L/min) as compared to endotracheal tube (ETT). PATIENTS AND
methodsFifty nine non-smoking adult patients; ASA I or II, being scheduled for elective surgical procedures, with an expected duration of anesthesia 60 minutes or more, were randomly allocated into two groups - Group I (29 patients) had been ventilated using LMA size 4 for females and 5 for males respectively; and Group II (30 patients) were intubated using ETT. After 10 minutes of high fresh gas flow, the flow was reduced to 1 L/min. Patients were monitored for airway leakage, end-tidal CO(2)(ETCO(2)), inspiratory and expiratory isoflurane and nitrous oxide fraction concentrations, and postoperative airway-related complications.
resultsTwo patients in the LMA-group developed initial airway leakage (6.9%) versus no patient in ETT-group. Cough and sore throat were significantly higher in ETT patients. There were no evidences of differences between both groups regarding ETCO(2), uptake of gases, nor difficulty in swallowing.
conclusionThe laryngeal mask airway proved to be effective and safe in establishing an airtight seal during controlled ventilation under low fresh gas flow of 1 L/min, inducing less coughing and sore throat during the immediate postoperative period than did the ETT, with continuous measurement and readjustment of the tube cuff pressure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.