ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2015
Comparison of the Macintosh and Airtraq Laryngoscopes in Endotracheal Intubation Success.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2015. 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.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- [The role of videolaryngoscope in endotracheal intubation training programs].Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndotracheal intubation of patients is an effective method for controlling airway and breathing. However, laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is not easy in every case. There is a recent abundance of equipment used for controlling ventilation and intubation. Airtraq is one of those equipments. In this study, our main objective is to compare the success rates of the Airtraq and Macintosh (direct and classic) laryngoscopes in endotracheal intubation.
methodsIn this single-center, prospective, randomized, clinical study was performed on 80 patients who were operated under general anesthesia, ASA I-II, 18-65 years old. Patients were intubated using two different endotracheal intubation tools. Group A was intubated using the Macintosh (direct and classic) laryngoscope, meanwhile Group B was intubated using the Airtraq laryngoscope. Patients' snoring complaints, modified Mallampati scores, sternomental distances, thyromental distances, interincisor distance measurements and Cormack-Lehane (C-L) laryngoscopic classification, upper lip bite test results, intubation time, number of intubation attempts, maneuvers and techniques used for facilitating intubation and complications arising from intubation were recorded.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of C-L scores (p=0.041). In all, 8 patients in the Macintosh group, and 2 patients in the Airtraq group were C-L grade III. In intubation of the Airtraq group, only 3 patients required facilitating techniques, meanwhile in intubation of the Macintosh group 15 patients we had to use one or more facilitating maneuver. The rate of Mallampati scoring "difficult" was 4/6 in the Macintosh and 2/11 in Airtraq laryngoscopy groups (p=0.553).
conclusionIn cases with seemingly difficult intubations, we believe the Airtraq laryngoscope has an advantage over the Macintosh laryngoscope, owing to its better view of the oropharyngeal and glottic areas in addition to facilitating intubation in patients with limited head extension.
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.