ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the New SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Erratum: Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of fiberoptic-guided success of intubation using intubating LMA and intubating laryngeal tube suction.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNewly developed supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) are designed to be used both for ventilation and as conduits for endotracheal intubation with standard endotracheal tubes (ETTs). We compared the efficacy of the Ambu AuraGain (AAG) and the newly developed intubating laryngeal tube suction disposable (ILTS-D) as conduits for blind and fiber-optically guided endotracheal intubation in an airway mannequin. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a prospective, randomized, crossover study in an airway mannequin, with two arms: blind ETT insertion by medical students and fiber-optically guided ETT insertion by anesthesiologists. The primary outcome variable was the time to achieve an effective airway through an ETT using AAG and ILTS-D as conduits. Secondary outcome variables were the time to achieve effective supraglottic ventilation and successful exchange with an ETT, and the success rates for blind endotracheal intubation and fiber-optically guided intubation techniques for both SGAs.
resultsForty participants were recruited to each group. All participants were able to insert both devices successfully on the first attempt. For
conclusionThe ILTS-D successfully performs in an airway mannequin with higher success rate and shorter time for blindly establishing an airway with an ETT using the SGA as a conduit, compared with AAG. Further clinical trials are warranted.
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.