ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches
Comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation by postgraduate residents of anesthesiology using Airtraq™ and Macintosh laryngoscopes: An observational study.
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 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Intubation Success Rate using Airtraq Laryngoscope and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway in Novice Users with Prior Airway Management Experience: A Prospective Randomised Study.Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextAirtraq™ (Prodol Meditec, Vizcaya, Spain) is a recently developed laryngoscope, which facilitates easy visualization of glottis through a matrix of sequentially arranged lenses and mirrors. In this observatory study, we sought to compare the ease of tracheal intubation with Airtraq™ and Macintosh laryngoscope when performed by 2(nd) year postgraduate residents of Anesthesiology in NRI Medical College, Mangalagiri.
aimsTo compare the ease of tracheal intubation by Airtraq™ laryngoscope with that by Macintosh laryngoscope among the 2(nd) year postgraduate residents of anesthesiology in terms of time taken for intubation and the rise of rate-pressure product (RPP) with intubation. SETTINGS AND
designProspective randomized observational study. SUBJECTS AND
methodsEighty adult and healthy patients with an easy airway, scheduled for general anesthesia were allocated into two groups A, and M. Patients in Group A were intubated with Airtraq™ laryngoscope and those in Group M were intubated with Macintosh laryngoscope by the 2(nd) year postgraduate residents of anesthesiology. The time taken for intubation, the RPPs at baseline, after induction of general anesthesia, postintubation, at 3 and 5 min after intubation, the rise of RPP to intubation and the occurrence of a sore throat were compared between the two groups. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyze the data.
resultsThe mean time for intubation in Macintosh group was 28.18 s and was 40.98 s in Airtraq group. The mean rise of RPP to intubation was 4644.83 in Airtraq group and 2829.27 in Macintosh group. The incidence of a sore throat was equal in both the groups.
conclusionsThe time for intubation and the sympathetic response to airway instrumentation were more with Airtraq™ laryngoscope than with Macintosh laryngoscope.
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.