ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2017
A randomised controlled trial comparing ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, i-gel and Laryngeal Tube Suction-D under general anaesthesia for elective surgical patients requiring controlled ventilation.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of LTS-D and i-gel in non-paralyzed pediatric patients under general anesthesia: a randomized trial.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2025Trial
- A prospective observational study comparing two supraglottic airway devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Comparison of Two Supraglottic Airway Devices: I-gel Airway and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Following Digital Insertion in Nonparalyzed Anesthetized Patients.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), i-gel™ and Laryngeal Tube Suction-D (LTS-D™) have previously been evaluated alone or in pair-wise comparisons but differing study designs make it difficult to compare the results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of these three devices in terms of efficacy and safety in patients receiving mechanical ventilation during elective surgical procedures.
methodsThis prospective, randomised, double-blind study was conducted on 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients, randomly allocated into 3 groups, undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. PLMA, i-gel™ or LTS-D™ appropriate for weight or/and height was inserted. Primary outcome measured was airway sealing pressure. Insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, overall success rate and the incidence of airway trauma and complications were also recorded. Intergroup differences were compared using one-way analysis of variance with
resultsOverall success rate was comparable between the three devices (i-gel™ 100%, LTS-D™ 94%, PLMA 96%). Airway sealing pressure was lower with i-gel™ (23.38 ± 2.06 cm H
conclusionAirway sealing pressure and insertion time were significantly higher in PLMA compared to i-gel™ and LTS-D™.
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.