Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30581857›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2018

A Comparison between the i-gel® and air-Q® Supraglottic Airway Devices Used for the Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia with Muscle Relaxation.

Nilofar Massoudi, Mohammad Fathi, Navid Nooraei, Alireza Salehi

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Nilofar MassoudiClinical Research and Development Unit at Shahid Modarres Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-0670-4338
Mohammad FathiClinical Research and Development Unit at Shahid Modarres Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Navid NooraeiAnesthesiology Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7226-7618
Alireza SalehiClinical Research and Development Unit at Shahid Modarres Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the present study was to compare two supraglottic airway (SGA) devices (i.e., the i-gel® © Intersurgical Ltd and air-Q® (Reusable) Cookgas company) in terms of the insertion time, amount of leak during ventilation with maximum positive pressure, and postoperative complications in patients referring to Modarres Hospital in Tehran.

methodThe present double-blind clinical trial was performed on 60 patients undergoing elective surgeries that required general anesthesia with muscle relaxation. Patients were randomly assigned to either i-gel® (

resultsThe mean age, body mass index, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, and gender ratio were not significantly different between the two groups. Mean ± SD values of the SGA devices' insertion time (in seconds) in the air-Q® and i-gel® groups were 4.87 ± 1.6 and 6.80 ± 1.2, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean OLP in the Air-Q® group was significantly higher than that of the i-gel® group (35.9 ± 9.6 versus 24.8 ± 3.7, p < 0.001). The frequency of complications occurred after the supraglottic airway insertion was higher in the i-gel® group. However, only in terms of sore throat, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant: 6 (20%) had sore throat (P = 0.024) in the i-gel groups, but in in the Air-Q® groups no one had this side effect after surgery.

conclusionIt was concluded that the Air-Q® supraglottic airway was placed faster and easier with fewer complications than the i-gel in general anesthesia with muscle relaxation. The frequency of the occurrence of all three complications, cough, sore throat, and blood, on the cuff (6 (20%) was higher in the i-gel group than that in the air-Q® group (cough3 (10%), sore throat 0 (0%), and blood on the cuff 3 (10%) (P < 0.05).

Indexed as

AdultAirway ManagementAnesthesia, GeneralCoughDouble-Blind MethodElective Surgical ProceduresEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealIranMaleMuscle RelaxationPharyngitisPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID30581857
PMCPMC6276498
OpenAlexW2901598844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.