ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2018
Comparison of the Success Rate of Intubation Between the LMA Fastrach and AirQ-ILA Methods in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery During General Anaesthesia.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between Air Q and intubating laryngeal mask airway as intubation conduits in patients with simulated fixed cervical spine: a prospective observational study.Medical gas researchTrial
- Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Suprasternal Versus Subxiphoid Ultrasonography for Endotracheal Intubation.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Laryngeal Mask Airway Compared to Endotracheal Tube: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of RAMP and New Modified RAMP Positioning in Laryngoscopic View During Intubation in Patients with Morbid Obesity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021Article
- A study to evaluate and compare intubating laryngeal mask airway and air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for intubation using Parker Flex Tip tube.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Comparison of success rate of BlockBusterIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- A study to compare Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway with Ambu Auragain laryngeal mask for blind tracheal intubation using Parker flex tip tube.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of three supraglottic airway devices for blind tracheal intubation by novice practitioners: A randomized manikin study.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid placement of a reliable airway is the most important task in anesthesia practice. Airway management is a critical skill to provide safe anesthesia since morbidity. In addition, mortality due to anesthesia could be linked to difficulty or failure in airway management. In this study, intubation success was compared between two methods, AirQ-ILA and LMAfastrach, among candidates for elective surgery under general anesthesia.
methodsIn this clinical trial, patients, who were candidates for elective surgery under general anesthesia at Firoozgar and Rasoul Akram Hospitals, were randomly divided into LMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA groups. Heart rate before and after induction and intubation, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, duration of device insertion, intubation time, number of attempts until successful device insertion and trachea intubation, and success or failure in the insertion of the device and the tube were recorded; as for statistical analysis, SPSS version 21 was considered.
resultsIn comparison with the LMAfastrach group, the device insertion time and intubation time were significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group (P < 0.05). However, the groups showed no significant difference regarding the number of device and tube insertion attempts (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the success of device insertion and intubation in either LMAfastrach or AirQ-ILA group (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe LMAfastrach and AirQ-ILA methods were not significantly different regarding the success of airway instrument application and intubation, while the device insertion time and intubation time were significantly longer in the AirQ-ILA group in comparison with the LMAfastrach group.
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.