Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29628558›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches

Comparison of Inhalational Vital Capacity Induction with Sevoflurane to Intravenous Induction with Propofol for Insertion of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adults: A Randomized Study.

Vinaya Udaybhaskar, Amol Singam, Himanshu Dodeja, Karuna Taksande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vinaya UdaybhaskarDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
Amol SingamDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
Himanshu DodejaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
Karuna TaksandeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the development of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) by Dr. Brain, it is extensively used for airway management; satisfactory insertion of LMA requires administration of an induction agent and suppression of airway reflexes. Among intravenous agents, propofol has been the drug of choice in view of better safety profile, relaxation and depression of upper airway reflexes. Sevoflurane on the other hand, with pleasant odor, nonirritating to the airways and with bronchodilator property are best among the volatile induction agents. While it is true both propofol and sevoflurane have their merits, still both have certain limitations. We aimed to compare the quality and ease of LMA insertion, hemodynamic changes, and complications with inhalation of 8% sevoflurane vital capacity breath and propofol. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective randomized study of 100 American Society of Anaesthesiologists' Class I and II patients was conducted equal distribution among two groups with 50 each undergoing gynecological procedures under general anesthesia. Group

resultsSevoflurane took a longer time for induction and jaw relaxation than propofol. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, with respect to LMA insertion time, and conditions. Apnea time was more in propofol group. Fall in heart rate and mean blood pressure was more in propofol.

conclusionPropofol is associated with faster induction while sevoflurane is associated with good hemodynamic stability.

Indexed as

Laryngeal mask airwaypropofolsevoflurane

Identifiers

PMID29628558
PMCPMC5872898
OpenAlexW2789545894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.