ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches
Suitability of Nasotracheal Intubation using King Vision and Truview
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of indirect versus direct laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation in adults undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Pooled it
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of McCoy, Macintosh, and Truview laryngoscope for bougie-aided naso-tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled study.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
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
backgroundSeveral video laryngoscopes had demonstrated their superiority over conventional oral and nasal intubation techniques. King Vision video laryngoscope has fewer studies supporting its suitability for oral intubations. However, its suitability as a nasal intubating device has not been yet evaluated. We evaluated the suitability of King Vision video laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation comparing with Truview
methodsEighty American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II elective surgical patients were studied. After meeting the inclusion criteria, 80 study subjects were randomized into two groups. Group T were intubated using Truview
resultsSeventy-one patients (88.75%) were successfully intubated in a single attempt, i.e. 35 patients (90%) in Group K and 36 patients (87.5%) in Group T. Intubation time (mean ± standard deviation) was 67.9 ± 24.1 s in Group T and 64.9 ± 20.0 s in Group K where comparison was not statistically significant (
conclusionKing Vision video laryngoscope is just as effective as Truview
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.