Trial reportSaudi medical journal2019
Comparison of new generation baska mask with i-gel and classical laryngeal mask in outpatient urological interventions.
Trial report in Saudi medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of the Baska Mask Versus Endotracheal Intubation in 64 Women Undergoing Elective Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Prospective Single-Center Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Trial
- Effect of classical laryngeal mask or I-gel use on otolaryngeal system in ambulatory inhalation general anesthesia: A prospective study.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Baska mask and the i-gel supraglottic airway devices in patients undergoing elective surgery.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical performance of the baska mask (PTY Ltd, Australia), i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd, UK) and classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in adult patients undergoing outpatient urologic interventions.
methodsOne hundred fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III physical status were enrolled between January 2017 and September 2017 in Yuksek Ihtisas Research and Educational Hospital, Ankara, Turkey for elective urological surgery for this prospective randomized controlled trial. There were 50 patients in each of the following groups: baska mask, i-gel, and cLMA. In each group, the insertion times, ventilation times, 'first attempt' success rates, airway dynamics-complications and hemodynamic variables were evaluated.
resultsNo statistically significant values were observed in means of demographic data, airway dynamics, complications, and hemodynamic variables. Insertion and ventilation times were different between groups (p less than 0.001 for each). In cLMA group, insertion and ventilation times were found to be shorter than others (insertion times 5.78±1.72 seconds and ventilation times 11.72±4.72 seconds). The longest insertion and ventilation times were observed in baska mask with 12.04±6.25 and 21.26±8.53 seconds. The 'first attempt' success rates were 98% for cLMA, 92% for i-gel, and 88% for baska mask. The addition maneuvering requirements in baska mask group was 20% (40/10). Conclusion: When cLMA, i-gel and baska mask are compared regarding insertion and ventilating times, first attempt success rates, and additional maneuvers, cLMA and i-gel are superior to baska mask in urological ambulatory surgical cases.
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.