Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2014
Pyriform sinus localization-assisted blind intubation: comparison with laryngoscopic intubation.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional endotracheal intubation requires laryngoscopy for a direct view of the glottis. However, laryngoscopy is associated with many potential complications. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pyriform sinus localization-assisted blind orotracheal intubation with those of conventional laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized, patient-blind, prospective study of 300 patients who underwent various operations was performed. One hundred patients were assigned to the laryngoscopic intubation group (laryngoscopy group), and 200 patients were assigned to the blind intubation group (blind group).
resultsThe total intubation success rate in the blind group was similar to that in the laryngoscopy group (100% vs. 99%, respectively; p=0.33). Oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry in both groups was maintained at >98%. The intubation time was significantly shorter in the blind group than in the laryngoscopy group (9.7±3.4 s vs. 23.0±5.8 s, respectively; p<0.001). Postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in the blind group than in the laryngoscopy group. Recovery time from these symptoms was significantly shorter in the blind group than in the laryngoscopy group (p=0.004).
conclusionsPyriform sinus localization-assisted blind orotracheal intubation was shown to be more effective than conventional laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation in terms of success rate, intubation time, and postoperative complication rate. Moreover, it is less affected by common risk factors; thus, this method may be more beneficial in patients with difficult airways.
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.