ArticleDer Anaesthesist2016
[Intubating laryngeal tube suction disposable: Initial clinical experiences with a novel device for endotracheal intubation].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03165461 (Evaluation of the Use of Tracheal Intubation Through a Laryngeal Tube to Intubate Anesthetized Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Evaluation of the Use of Tracheal Intubation Through a Laryngeal Tube to Intubate Anesthetized Patients
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Trial
- Optical Devices in Tracheal Intubation-State of the Art in 2020.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Supraglottic Airway Devices: the Search for the Best Insertion Technique or the Time to Change Our Point of View?Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2017Article
- Extraglottic airway devices: technology update.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Review
- Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of fiberoptic-guided success of intubation using intubating LMA and intubating laryngeal tube suction.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the recent guidelines supraglottic airways, such as laryngeal tubes are recommended to ensure oxygenation in patients with unexpected difficult airways. The novel Intubating Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable (iLTS-D) is a modified laryngeal tube designed for secondary tracheal intubation. This pilot study evaluated the use of the iLTS-D in clinical practice with respect to practicality and efficacy.
methodsIn this study the airways of 30 consecutive adult patients with no evidence of a difficult airway undergoing elective ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery were managed with the iLTS-D. After induction of anesthesia the iLTS-D was placed in position and checked for correct ventilation. Following muscle relaxation, endotracheal intubation through the iLTS-D was performed under continuous visualization using a flexible bronchoscope. Finally, the iLTS-D was removed leaving the endotracheal tube in place. Data were collected anonymously as part of a quality assurance program. Publication of the data was approved by the institutional review board.
resultsInitial iLTS-D placement took a median of 17 s (range 12-90 s) and provided sufficient ventilation in all patients; however, the position of the iLTS-D needed to be adjusted in four patients. Endotracheal intubation through the iLTS-D was achieved in 29 out of 30 patients at the first attempt (n = 23) or after 2 attempts (n = 6) and the median time required for intubation was 32 s (range 18-187 s). In five patients no laryngeal structures could initially be identified by bronchoscopy. Blind endotracheal intubation through the iLTS-D was performed in two cases and in two other patients the endotracheal tube was also blindly advanced but into the esophagus. After removal of the endotracheal tube and repositioning of the iLTS-D, successful tracheal intubation was subsequently achieved under bronchoscopic vision. The procedure was aborted and uneventful conventional intubation using direct laryngoscopy was carried out in one patient. The median time for removal of the iLTS-D after successful intubation was 20 s (range 15-80 s). Minor blood stains on the iLTS-D were observed in three patients. With one exception, all problems and adverse events occurred during the first 10 patients.
conclusionThis first clinical study demonstrated that in patients with apparently normal airways and in the hands of users without previous experience, the iLTS-D allowed sufficient ventilation in all patients and had a high success rate for subsequent endotracheal intubation. The results are, however, preliminary until confirmed by further studies, particularly 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.