Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886338›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches

A comparative study between Truview(PCD) laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in viewing glottic opening and ease of intubation: A crossover study.

Sourav Kr Bag, V R Hemanth Kumar, N Krishnaveni, M Ravishankar, J Velraj, M Aruloli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sourav Kr BagDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
V R Hemanth KumarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
N KrishnaveniDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
M RavishankarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
J VelrajDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.
M AruloliDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTruview(PCD) laryngoscope is specially designed to aid positioning of the endotracheal tube as well as to record entry of the tube into glottis. Aim of the study is to compare the view of glottic opening and ease of intubation between Truview(PCD) laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA). METHODOLOGY: Two hundred patients undergoing elective surgery, under GA were randomized into two groups, Group TV and Group ML. In Group TV, Trueview(PCD) laryngoscope was used initially to visualize the vocal cords for Cormack and Lehane grading (CLG) and to spray the vocal cords with 10% lignocaine. Then the patient was ventilated for 1 min and Macintosh laryngoscope was used to visualize the vocal cords for CLG and proceed with intubation. In Group ML, Macintosh laryngoscope was used initially and later Truview(PCD) laryngoscope. Time to intubation, CLG, number of attempts and hemodynamic parameters were recorded.

resultsNinety-six and 89 patients had CLG1 visualization when Truview(PCD) laryngoscope was used as 1(st) and 2(nd) device respectively compared to 41 and 68 with Macintosh laryngoscope (P = 0.00). Four patients had CLG 4 visualization with Macintosh laryngoscope that turned out to be grade II visualization with Truview(PCD) laryngoscope (P = 0.00). Mean time taken for intubation with Truview(PCD) and Macintosh laryngoscope was 21.10 ± 5.64 s and 15.79 ± 2.76 s respectively (P = 0.00).

conclusionBetter visualization with lesser CLG was found with Truview(PCD) laryngoscope but it took longer time for intubation than Macintosh laryngoscope. The hemodynamic response to intubation was significantly less with the use of Truview(PCD) laryngoscope when compared to that of Macintosh laryngoscope.

Indexed as

Ease of intubationglottic viewTruviewPCD laryngoscope

Identifiers

PMID25886338
PMCPMC4258957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.