Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31690285›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2019

The midline approach for endotracheal intubation using GlideScope video laryngoscopy could provide better glottis exposure in adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Lianxiang Jiang, Shulin Qiu, Peng Zhang, Weidong Yao, Yan Chang, Zeping Dai

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05635500 (Clinical Comparison Between Midline and Right-sided Insertion of the Videolaryngoscope for Intubation - a Randomized, Controlled, Prospective Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

NCT05635500 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Comparison Between Midline and Right-sided Insertion of the Videolaryngoscope for Intubation - a Randomized, Controlled, Prospective Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2021 to 2023Enrolled184ConditionsIntubation, Difficult or FailedArmsDifferent Approach to endotracheal intubation.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lianxiang JiangDepartment of Anaesthesia, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, No. 2, Zheshan West Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, China.
Shulin QiuDepartment of Anaesthesia, Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Anaesthesia, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, No. 2, Zheshan West Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, China.
Weidong YaoDepartment of Anaesthesia, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, No. 2, Zheshan West Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, China.
Yan ChangDepartment of Anaesthesia, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, No. 2, Zheshan West Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, China.
Zeping DaiDepartment of Anaesthesia, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, No. 2, Zheshan West Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, China. zpdai@wnmc.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-3292-2897
Wannan Medical College · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that the common laryngoscopic approach (right-sided) and midline approach are both used for endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy. Although the midline approach is commonly recommended for video laryngoscopy (VL) in the clinic, there is a lack of published evidences to support this practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different video laryngoscopic approaches on intubation.

methodsTwo hundred sixty-two patients aged 18 years who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia and required endotracheal intubation were included in the present prospective, randomized, controlled study. The participants were randomly and equally allocated to the right approach (Group R) or midline approach (Group M). All the intubations were conducted by experienced anaesthetists using GlideScope video laryngoscopy. The primary outcomes were Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopic views (CLVs) and first-pass success (FPS) rates. The secondary outcomes were the time to glottis exposure, time to tracheal intubation, haemodynamic responses and other adverse events. Comparative analysis was performed between the groups.

resultsFinally, 262 patients completed the study, and all the tracheas were successfully intubated. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics and airway assessments (P > 0.05). Compared with Group R, Group M had a better CLV (χ2 = 14.706, P = 0.001) and shorter times to glottis exposure (8.82 ± 2.04 vs 12.38 ± 1.81; t = 14.94; P < 0.001) and tracheal intubation (37.19 ± 5.01 vs 45.23 ± 4.81; t = 13.25; P < 0.001), but no difference was found in the FPS rate (70.2% vs 71.8%; χ2 = 0.074; P = 0.446) and intubation procedure time (29.86 ± 2.56 vs 30.46 ± 2.97, t = 1.75, P = 0.081). Between the groups, the rates of hoarseness or sore throat, minor injury, hypoxemia and changes in SBP and HR showed no significant difference (P > 0.05).

conclusionAlthough the FPS rate did not differ based on the laryngoscopic approach, the midline approach could provide better glottis exposure and shorter times to glottis exposure and intubation. The midline approach should be recommended for teaching in VL-assisted endotracheal intubation.

trial registrationThe study was registered on May 18, 2019 in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1900023252 ).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnesthesia, GeneralElective Surgical ProceduresEquipment DesignFemaleGlottisHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopesLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTime FactorsEndotracheal intubationLaryngoscopic approachVideo laryngosc

Identifiers

PMID31690285
PMCPMC6829853
OpenAlexW2984731420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.