ArticleAnesthesiology research and practice2015
Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized, Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study.
Article in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Pooled it
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
Introduction. This study compared streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) and I-gel noninflatable, single-use, supraglottic airway device (SAD) performance in anesthetized, paralyzed adults. Methods. Eighty adults (ASA physical statuses I-III) who were undergoing elective procedures under general anesthesia with an SAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Subjects were randomly and evenly assigned to the SLIPA or I-gel group for intraoperative airway management. Ease and number of insertions, insertion time, oropharyngeal sealing pressure, hemodynamic response, oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2), and peri- and postoperative complications were examined. Results. The SLIPA and I-gel devices were successfully inserted in 100% and 95% of subjects, respectively. In two I-gel subjects (5%), ventilation was not possible after two attempts, but a size 55 SLIPA was successfully inserted in both cases. Forty-two and 38 patients were ultimately included in the SLIPA and I-gel groups, respectively. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the SLIPA (11.19 ± 3.03 s) than with the I-gel (15.05 ± 6.37 s, P = 0.003). Oropharyngeal sealing pressure was significantly higher in SLIPA (28.76 ± 3.11 cmH2O) than in I-gel (25.9 ± 3.65 cmH2O) subjects (P = 0.001). Blood staining occurred more frequently in SLIPA (n = 8, 19.0%) than in I-gel (n = 5, 13.2%) patients (P < 0.01). Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO2, and EtCO2 were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion. Although blood staining incidence was higher, SLIPA insertion was easier and faster than I-gel insertion. The SLIPA provided better airway sealing pressure. Both devices had similar mechanical ventilation and oxygenation characteristics and comparable hemodynamic stability. Both noninflatable SADs are useful, but SLIPA rapid insertion and good airway sealing make it an effective alternative to the I-gel.
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.