ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Evaluation of the Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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.
- Truview PCD-video laryngoscope aided nasotracheal intubation in case series of orofacial malignancy with limited mouth opening.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Suitability of Nasotracheal Intubation using King Vision and TruviewAnesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
- Comparison of McCoy, Macintosh, and Truview laryngoscope for bougie-aided naso-tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled study.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope, with its unique optical lens system and blade tip angulation, has proved its usefulness in providing adequate laryngeal exposure and intubation via the oral route. However, the same has not been evaluated for nasotracheal intubation.
aimWe evaluated the suitability of the Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation.
methodsFifty ASA grade I and II elective surgical patients were studied. Patients aged below 15 years or having difficult airway were excluded. Under standard anesthesia protocol, nasotracheal intubation was performed using a Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope and, in cases of inability to complete intubation in three attempts, the Macintosh laryngoscope was used. Time taken for intubation, use of Magill's forceps and need for optimization maneuvers were noted. The primary outcome was percentage of successful intubation, while hemodynamic changes and duration of intubation were taken as secondary outcomes.
resultsMajority (94%) could be intubated successfully with the Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope. Average time taken for intubation was 50.1 s. The hemodynamic changes were not clinically significant. Regression analysis revealed lack of association between duration of intubation and hemodynamic changes. There were no serious complications.
conclusionThe Truview™ EVO2 laryngoscope is a useful tool in performing nasotracheal intubation, ensuring a high level of success rate among patients with normal airway anatomy.
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.